Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Two sides in Iraq
At OpenDemocracy there's a response by Eli Lake to Sasha Abramsky's piece that I linked to recently. Lake begins by recalling statements from certain well-known figures, like John Pilger, George Galloway and Arundhati Roy, in support of the Iraqi so-called resistance, and then goes on to make some more general points:
For progressives to rejoin the serious discussion about this big war, they must return to their paleo-liberal roots. There was a time when the left chose to defend democrats abroad out of the conviction that the freedoms they enjoyed applied universally. Today the prevailing wisdom is that these fights are worth fighting only if approved by the United Nations Security Council. It's time to abandon this multilateral fetish and return to the robust vision of the international volunteers who defended the Spanish Republic against General Franco. Imagine what George Orwell would say if someone questioned his Homage to Catalonia because the League of Nations in 1937 issued a ban on volunteer partisans.
.....
Progressives cannot remain neutral in the war for Iraq. While it is true that the coalition and its allied militias have committed atrocities, it is also true that the caliphate-ists and the fascists seek perpetual atrocity. One side is fighting for elections, a constitution (however flawed) and federalism. The other side is fighting for the obliteration of those things. The choice is between (Jalal) Talabani and the Taliban and Talabani is losing. This makes it all the more urgent for paleo-progressives to seek the unconditional surrender of this vile insurgency on whose behalf Robert Fisk, John Pilger, Tariq Ali, George Galloway have spent the war agitating.
That's one view (via Tooting Station). Here's another, from the lead editorial in today's Guardian:
People who opposed the war in Iraq will find it hard to stomach attempts to present the referendum as a triumph. If the vote does any good, it will be more by good luck and war weariness than good planning. Yet what matters is trying to ensure that something workable - and legitimate - emerges from under the bloodstained rubble. It is possible to see a benign outcome if violence can be contained - admittedly a very big if - and if there is a big turnout in December's elections. That could see the start of something approaching normal democratic politics for a country that has been cruelly torn apart by the way its dictator was overthrown. Today's ballots offer some hope that the bombings may eventually end.
Four observations on this. (1) What 'people who opposed the war in Iraq' might find hard or easy to stomach isn't of great moment, when you think about it, in the context of the future of Iraq and its people. (2) One could hope that the result of today's referendum might be, even if less than a triumph, an achievement; and that would be rather good in the circumstances. (3) The phrase 'cruelly torn apart by the way its dictator was overthrown' invites the thought of how cruelly the country referred to was held together by the dictator referred to, and also the thought that an alternative way of overthrowing him was not on offer in early 2003, only more cruel 'holding together' - as would have been the result if the view of those who opposed the war, including the Guardian, had prevailed. (4) The paragraph as a whole is a nice illustration of the anti-war system of accounting, which some of us who favoured the liberation of Iraq find hard to stomach (once stomachs is what you're talking): everything bad that has happened since the war is a result of the war; anything good that has happened is... why, something else entirely. But there are people who are capable of seeing the trick here, of seeing that the phrase 'the way its dictator was overthrown' includes the phrase 'its dictator was overthrown'.
[See now also my Iraqi referendum roundup.]
Saturday, October 15, 2005
Landmark Election in Iraq
HISTORIC VOTE IN IRAQ BEGINS,
VIDEO HERE
Iraqis vote today to give a "yes" or "no" to a constitution that will define democracy in Iraq.
Comparing Quagmires:
Japan- VJ Day 8/15/1945- Constitution Ratified- 11/3/1946 1 Years 3 Months
Germany- VE Day 5/8/1945 Constitution Ratified- 5/23/1949 4 Years
Italy- VE Day 5/8/1945 Constitution Ratified- 12/11/1947 2 Years 7 Months
France- VE Day 5/8/1945 Constitution Ratified- (4th Version) 10/27/1946 (5th version) 10/4/1958 1,13 Years 5,5 Months
US- Declaration of Independence- 7/4/1776 Constitution Ratified- 9/17/1787 11 Years 2 Months
Iraq- Iraq War Began Ratification Election- 10/15/2005 2 Years 7 Months (since war began)
EU- In process
Comparing Violence:
January- 347 attacks on polling day, 44 dead, including 9 attackers
Today- Less than 13 attacks on polling stations, 3 Iraqi Soldiers died when they drove over a roadside bomb, no other deaths reported
With hope for a bright future, Iraqis vote today.
An Iraqi child waits for her parents to vote in the referendum on Iraq's new constitution in Baghdad, Iraq, Saturday Oct. 15 2005. Iraqis vote Saturday to give a 'yes' or 'no' to a constitution that will define democracy in Iraq. (AP)
The terrorists also came out today hoping to win the hearts of the Iraqis by threats of violence. Four of the 1,200 Baghdad polling stations saw explosions with reports of injury but no death:
A roadside bomb killed three Iraqi soldiers in northeast Iraq on Saturday, and six people were wounded in attacks by insurgents on four of Baghdad's 1,200 polling stations during the country's constitutional referendum, police said.
Iraqis wait in long queues to vote in Iraq's referendum on the new constitution in Mosul, Iraq, Saturday Oct. 15 2005.Iraqis vote Saturday to give a 'yes' or 'no' to a constitution that would define democracy in Iraq, a country once ruled by Saddam Hussein. (AP)
Austin Bay published his thoughts on the Iraqi election, yesterday:
Current combat in Iraq is not simply the result of slapdash postwar planning. The United States has two strategic goals that have taken years to mesh in terms of political, economic and military operations.
Goal One: Engage al-Qaida on military and political battlefields in order to destroy its claim to "divine sanction" and to "speak on behalf of Islam."
Goal Two: Seed development of modern, democratic states in the politically dysfunctional Arab Muslim Middle East.
Achieving both goals defeats al-Qaida. Goal Two is a multidecade project. Reaching it requires sustained, courageous effort, but Iraq's January election and its constitutional process are signs of progress. Sensational carnage and "expert pessimism" dominated the international media's January election coverage.
Iraqi Shiites flash victory signs, showing off their ink marked fingers, after voting in Iraq's constitution referendum, in Baghdad, Iraq, Saturday Oct. 15 2005. The pictures in the background are of Iraqi Shia top cleric Al-Sistani who was vocal in his support of the Constitution. (AP)
Robert Mayer at Publius Pundit has been following this story closely since the first draft of the Constitution was made public.
The Adventures of Chester has been liveblogging the election.
Omar at Iraq the Model writes, "Just Say Yes!"
Shawn Wasson at Bare Knuckle Politics has a terrific roundup with video and pictures from around the world.
Michelle Malkin has "Iraq the Vote."
Michael Yon is in Iraq.
Glenn Reynolds is tracking the developments.
Norm Geras looks at the two sides of Iraq.
Roger Simon compares the Iraq Quagmire to US History.
The Fourth Rail notes Al Qaida's failings.
Update: Initial results shows high overall turnout at 61%.
posted by Gateway Pundit at 10/15/2005 09:27:00 AM
