The backpedal begins

[billvon 3,131]

From Reuters:

U.S. Lowers Expectations for Once-Heralded Iraq Vote
Sun Jan 16, 8:07 AM ET
By Saul Hudson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Unable to deliver on its lofty goal of bringing democracy to Iraq (news - web sites) through the Jan. 30 elections, the Bush administration is pressing a damage-control campaign to lower expectations for the vote.

With fears for a low voter turnout among Sunni Arabs due to a boycott and insurgents' intimidation, the administration no longer touts the elections as a catalyst to spread democracy across the Arab world.

Instead, U.S. officials now emphasize the political process that will follow the vote.

"Clearly, we don't see the election itself as a pivotal point," Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told NPR on Friday. "It's the beginning of a process, the process where Iraqis will write a constitution and at the end of the year will actually vote for a permanent government."
------------------------------

Most people who follow politician-speak will realize that this sets the stage for a "we told you that this wasn't a real election!" reply to questions after the election doesn't go so well.

I actually see this as a sort of good sign. An fradulent election rammed down the throats of a fearful Iraqi populace would be very bad news for Iraqis, and bad news in the long run for us as we try to stop the ensuing civil war. The administration is now realizing how bad the mess is over there, and once they realize how bad it is they can do a better job of fixing it. It's a few years too late, of course, but better late than never.

[rushmc 23]

Reuters??? They rank right up there with CBS. They cna make a story about the sun coming up in the morning be a bad thing.......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,131]

>Reuters??? They rank right up there with CBS.

So ignore the editorializing and just read the quotes. (Or get them from www.whitehouse.gov - a location I assume you will not accuse of being part of the liberal media.) My original post still applies.

[jkm2500 0]

Bill,

I don't like how everything is always spun against the president. If you recall, it took the support of congress to get this war kicked off. It takes the support of congress to keep this war going. This wasn't a partisan issue when Saddam was thumbing his nose at the US and basically saying bring it on. I think that for the most part most Iraqis are glad that we are there. There have been some unfortunate events that have transpired over there. That definitely happens at war. The majority of Iraqi citizens (read; Shi'ite Muslims and etnic kurds) want us there. The major aggression is happening in the sunni triangle. Those people were Saddam's supporters, and the ones that had money/power under his reign. If the Sunni's don't want to take part in the elections because they are the minority population, and will end up with the short end of the stick, I say let them. We, as a world body are too concerned with being sensitive to everybody. How many Shi'ites and ethnic kurds died under the Sunni reign?

If the elections go bad it wasn't GWB's fault, or the army's fault,or the US's fault. We are over there trying to help these people. People that literally don't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of. I think that they are better off than they were under Saddam. I think that a lot of people will turn out to vote, and that the people who are losing power will fight it tooth and nail. If the elections go bad it's the free Iraqi's fault.

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[TheAnvil 0]

One can form a strong and extremely tenable position that the reason for the increasing frequency of terrorist attacks is the upcoming election - and fear of its implications/consequences on the insurgent movement.

An insurgency can only be maintained with the support of the populace. Every Iraqi that the insurgents kill weakens them.

Mixed feelings from me about these elections. I hope they happen and hope democracy takes root, but want them to occur in a manner that allows all folks to vote safely. A large section of the populace boycotting the election would be a bad thing.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,131]

>I don't like how everything is always spun against the president.

?? I think this is a good move he's making (i.e. not trying to prop up an election that will probably not work, and not be representative of the people of Iraq.)

>I think that for the most part most Iraqis are glad that we are there.

I doubt that. I could list half a dozen reports and polls demonstrating that they are very much opposed to our being there, but since that will immediately be followed with a post saying "it's the lying liberal media!" I won't bother. Suffice it to say that we have killed at least ten thousand innocent Iraqis, and I don't think their families like that very much.

I suspect that if, say, Hezbollah killed your family, you'd be angry at them. Not because you hate their god, or hate that they are courageous, or hate that they are arabs, but because they killed your family. Iraqis are not so different from us.

>How many Shi'ites and ethnic kurds died under the Sunni reign?

A lot. A lot have died under our reign, too.

>If the elections go bad it's the free Iraqi's fault.

I don't think we can invade a country, destroy a corrupt government, impose a US-led interim government, kill an awful lot of Iraqis (whether you think we were right or wrong to do that, we certainly did a lot of it) - and then, when things go bad, say "hey, it's your fault, we had nothing to do with it."

There's an old Indian tribal custom that if you kill a man, you inherit both his wealth and his responsibilities. We destroyed the government of Iraq for political purposes and killed a lot of people in the process. We have 'inherited' some good things (i.e. advancement of the PNAC plan for the middle east) - but we have also inherited the responsibility of setting up a government there. It may take ten years and trillions of dollars, and it may take ten thousand US lives to do it. But the time to decide you are not OK with that was March 2003 - not two years afterwards. Now we have committed, and we owe it to the people of Iraq to live up to our responsibilities.

Another poster on here was of the opinion that at some point we'll just declare victory, give everyone a medal and leave Iraq to the insurgents. I hope we don't take that coward's way out.

[greybeard 0]

Not necssarily 'the cowards way out', but eventualy and inevitably, unless we colonize, our time of presence there will end and that particular part of the world will find it's own way to it's own future.

Sadly, I think that , like an alchoholic, after years of sobriety, takes one drink, and returns to where he left off. This society has to function and evolve unto themselves with their own history, identity and pace of destiny. Western intrusion is just that, an 'intrusion', and a delay of their own evolution.

This recent history will prove to be a small blip!

The MORE THINGS CHANGE, THE MORE THEY STAY THE SAME!

[billvon 3,131]

> unless we colonize, our time of presence there will end . . .

I agree. The difference is whether we leave a stable Iraq in the hands of the Iraqis or flee the insurgents we no longer have the national will to fight.

>Western intrusion is just that, an 'intrusion', and a delay of their own evolution.

I agree there too. It would be ironic if, after thousands of american deaths, and tens of thousands of iraqi deaths, we have effectively no impact (or worse yet, a negative impact) on the course of their own evolution.

[greybeard 0]

Amen!

Think about the long,long term bigger picture.

I expected argument referencing Germany, Japan, etc. Some valid good came from our intervention and prolonged presence.

???????????????????????????????????????????/

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

>Western intrusion is just that, an 'intrusion', and a delay of their own evolution.

I agree there too. It would be ironic if, after thousands of american deaths, and tens of thousands of iraqi deaths, we have effectively no impact (or worse yet, a negative impact) on the course of their own evolution.

So had we stayed out of Afghanistan, they would've had free elections last year anyway, or maybe even sooner?

. . =(_8^(1)

[billvon 3,131]

>So had we stayed out of Afghanistan, they would've had free
> elections last year anyway, or maybe even sooner?

?? You realize that outside of Kabul, the warlords are running things, right? They are getting fat and happy on drug money (Afghanistan is now the #1 grower of opium) and outside Kabul, not a lot has changed. Beyond having the new freedom to grow opium without taliban interference, that is.

I think it's great we liberated Kabul and allowed elections to take place, but the hard part is just beginning in Afghanistan.

From AFP:

-----------------------
Afghanistan's US-backed central government has the support of the international community, but international forces have been reluctant to commit troops to cities outside Kabul, leaving the rest of the country under the sway of warlords who built up private militias battling the Soviets and the Taliban.
---------------------

[slug 1]

Quote

> unless we colonize, our time of presence there will end . . .

I agree. The difference is whether we leave a stable Iraq in the hands of the Iraqis or flee the insurgents we no longer have the national will to fight.

>Western intrusion is just that, an 'intrusion', and a delay of their own evolution.

I agree there too. It would be ironic if, after thousands of american deaths, and tens of thousands of iraqi deaths, we have effectively no impact (or worse yet, a negative impact) on the course of their own evolution.

IMO we made a major error by disbanding the iraqi army. we're now in a position of trying to train a new iraqi army from scratch. It's going to take a long time for the iraqi's to be able to defend themselves from the trouble makers.

The iraqi police appear to be out numbered, out trained and out gunned with a target on their backs.

We need to turn the running of iraq back to the iraqi's, a election will be a start in the right direction since the majority of the iraqi's are not part of Saddams clan. And will make up a major part of the new Iraq goverment

The challenge part is going keep the bully's from intimidating the iraqi gov't until their strong enough to protect themselves with their own army.

We leave to soon we lose we leave to late we lose.

Either way we can still support our troops and their families when they come back home. Their going to need our help and understanding for what they went thru.

Our troops that didn't play by the rules and their chain of command shouldn't be given a free ride at the cost of the toops that served with honor.

R.I.P.

[rushmc 23]

Mine still applies too! Many news outlets take information that is good news......dig until they find the odd, negative slant and report that. This case in no exception.

Most "quotes" can tweeked.........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

I think it's great we liberated Kabul and allowed elections to take place, but the hard part is just beginning in Afghanistan.

That's fine, but the point I was addressing is the dumb one that we somehow can't positively affect the natural "evolution" of those back-asswards societies. I think we can.

Actually, the most useful thing we can do for ourselves is help them hurry up and "mutate" into not supporting terror any more.

. . =(_8^(1)

[pajarito 0]

Quote

?? You realize that outside of Kabul, the warlords are running things, right? They are getting fat and happy on drug money (Afghanistan is now the #1 grower of opium) and outside Kabul, not a lot has changed. Beyond having the new freedom to grow opium without taliban interference, that is.

I think it's great we liberated Kabul and allowed elections to take place, but the hard part is just beginning in Afghanistan.

You're right in that a lot more work is required. However, progress is being made all over the country. You're right in that the current government primarily only has control of Kabul, however, we are in all of those other areas and are working with the warlords directly and many are falling in line with and are supporting the central government. Granted, a lot of that support stems from our financial support, however, it's a start. These things take time. Constant criticism doesn't help matters. It wouldn't kill you to admit to the cup being half full instead of empty once in a while Bill. There are many ethnic groups which make up the population of Afghanistan. Primarily, as far as the central government is concerned, the problem group is the Pashtuns (former Taliban). Many of the others just want what's best for their own groups (and the warlords themselves, of course; I'm not trying to be naive and say that they aren't out for themselves). Just saying that progress is being made all over the country and not just Kabul. Also, there are foreign civilian contractors and military all over the country. It's not just us anymore. More and more are following as the country becomes more and more stable and secure. Drugs will always be a problem. Although, I think it will be reduced as the economy grows. We're getting some of it but I don't think we're touching the tip of the iceberg. It takes time, though. That was a good thing that we did and it deserves support. Even from you, Bill. It will pay off in the end. Those people have a little taste of something they’ve never had before.

[livendive 8]

Quote

I don't like how everything is always spun against the president.

Who asked for the support of Congress? Who's idea was this?

Quote

We are over there trying to help these people. People that literally don't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of.

They don't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of because we bombed their homes! Some kind of help there eh?

Quote

I think that they are better off than they were under Saddam.

Except the dead ones, right?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

That was a good thing that we did and it deserves support.

I agree, going into Afghanistan was a good thing, a proper reaction to 9/11.

It wouldn't hurt you to admit that Iraq hoqever is a cluster fuck, that the original reasons for the war were not valid and that there is no viable plan for the future.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

If you recall, it took the support of congress to get this war kicked off. It takes the support of congress to keep this war going.

It can't be a war. If you call it a war, it is an illegal one by your own constitution.

[billvon 3,131]

>Granted, a lot of that support stems from our financial support, however,
> it's a start. These things take time. Constant criticism doesn't help
> matters.

Well, it did get us to stop torturing Iraqis, which I see as a good thing.

>It wouldn't kill you to admit to the cup being half full instead of
>empty once in a while Bill.

?? Like I said, Kabul is in pretty good shape. I supported the war in Afghanistan, and I wish we'd put a little more effort into it from the outset. But I think you might be a bit optimistic in thinking that the cup is half full. It's not empty any more, which is good. We have a way to go before we're even halfway though.

>Drugs will always be a problem. Although, I think it will be reduced as the
>economy grows.

So far it's been the primary thing that is growing their economy - something like 75% of their income is from poppy cultivation. And actually I have no problem with that (they can do whatever they want) but it does lead to some obvious problems when we both financially support the #1 producer of opium in the world and prosecute the 'war on drugs.'

>That was a good thing that we did and it deserves support. Even from you, Bill.

I agree. And as I believe that they were using F-14's and E-2C's during the war, and are now using satellite phones for communications in areas without landlines, I am supporting it.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I actually see this as a sort of good sign. An fradulent election rammed down the throats of a fearful Iraqi populace would be very bad news for Iraqis, and bad news in the long run for us as we try to stop the ensuing civil war.

In what way would the election be fraudulent? I guess to me that implies we rigged it, when the problem is that some people in Iraq would much prefer that the people NOT choose leadership, and will cause as much violence as possible to discourage voting. It astounds me that somehow the US is the bad guy in this context. 'Those Yankee bastards - forcing us to choose who will run our country.'

If the elections are cancelled, it only encourages the belief that we're an occupying force.

[billvon 3,131]

>In what way would the election be fraudulent?

If the violence is so bad that a certain group (say the Shi'ites) stay home rather than risk being shot, then the results will be fraudulently skewed towards another group, like the Sunnis.

>I guess to me that implies we rigged it . . .

No; we just can't keep the peace there sufficiently to prevent OTHER people from rigging it. It's their fault; the only blame we have is not being able to stop them (which isn't the same thing.)

>when the problem is that some
> people in Iraq would much prefer that the people NOT choose leadership, and will cause as much violence as possible to discourage voting.

If most people don't want to choose leadership, isn't that their right? Neil Peart put it pretty well:
---
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice
----
>It astounds me that somehow the US is the bad guy in this context.

?? I said it's a good thing that we are gearing up to not support a fraudulent election. That's the opposite of being the bad guy.

[AndyMan 7]

I'm thrilled to see an acknoledgement that the US does not expect the election to contribute much to ending the violence. The expectations do seem much more reasonable, to me.

However, it does give the opportunity to ask one poignant question.

Does the US even have an exit strategy?

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[billvon 3,131]

>Does the US even have an exit strategy?

I have no doubt it will be explained in great detail after we exit.

[crozby 0]

Quote

If the violence is so bad that a certain group (say the Shi'ites) stay home rather than risk being shot, then the results will be fraudulently skewed towards another group, like the Sunnis.

Some Iraqis were being interviewed on the TV the other night and they were asking how they were supposed to vote for a candidate they knew nothing about who had policies they weren't aware of.

If that is in any way representative of common Iraqi feelings the turnout wont be high regardless of the security situation on the day.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Some Iraqis were being interviewed on the TV the other night and they were asking how they were supposed to vote for a candidate they knew nothing about who had policies they weren't aware of.

If that is in any way representative of common Iraqi feelings the turnout wont be high regardless of the security situation on the day.

No matter what the outcome, you guys will be saying that the election was a failure. Sure, it probably won't be as successful or streamlined as we're used to seeing, but it's a start. Beginnings are hard and take time. If many don't want to show up and vote, then they'll have no say in the government. Does it mean that the election was fraudulent or illegitimate? Hell no. It just means that democracy there is off to an "expected" slow start. At least it's there. They must be willing do die for the cause of their own freedom. Many currently serving the government are demonstrating that they are in fact willing.

On a side note: I was part of facilitating the first democratic election in the Republic of Haiti in 95. There was much violence, murder, harrassment, and burning of voter registration material in public buildings. It was a start for them and was considered a success by the Clinton administration. That fu$%ing joke was considered a feather in his cap.