Story is denied by Iraq.

Posted by: Shy Guy at December 14, 2005 11:18 AM

I used to think it was N. Korea, but Iran is the clearest choice for regime change in the world.

Posted by: kevin at December 14, 2005 11:21 AM

To paraphrase Hizzoner Richard J. Daley (father of present Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley): The Iranians are not here to create disorder. They are here to preserve disorder.

Posted by: Chatillon at December 14, 2005 11:24 AM

The story may be untrue, but is certainly verisimilar. That is, it might well have been true, given what Iran is like.

If it is untrue, might it not have been spread, or leaked, to the foreign press (New Duranty Times, etc.) by Sunnis who will, in a few days, be disappointed to discover that, while in the Sunni view they make up 42% of the population (in reality less than 20%), their representation in the government's legislature will be half that, at most, and that this can only be explained by Shi'a, Kurdish, and American Infidel perfidy. There is no possibility of the Sunni population being satisfied with the result, and these stories about Sunni participation in the voting are far too sanguine in the meaning they attribute to it. What will happen when, after such participation, the Sunnis realize that even by being good and playing the game they will never recover power, and that somehow their "42% of the population" will not receive appropriate representation or anything like it -- then what?

Then, renewed fury at the outcome.

These elections are a little like the trial of Saddam Hussein and his murderous retinue. The Americans assumed, long ago, that such a trial would be a Good Thing. That is, they thought such a trial would be, in the sentimental gush of the age that is now de rigueur, part of the "healing process" (Marin County comes to Baghdad) and of course -- what discussion of such things could avoid it -- part of some "Truth-and-Reconciliation" Process just like the one that supposedly worked wonders in South Africa). Nonsense.

What the trial of Saddam Hussein is now doing is exposing the indifference of the Sunnis to the massacres of non-Sunnis and non-Arabs, and to a certain amount of nostalgic rallying around the Great Man, defiant in his Sunni-Arab greatness, and reminding the Sunnis, by the way, that they constitute "12 million of the 25 million Iraqis" which, of course, is completely untrue.

These elections will not "heal" and will not lead to the Sunnis dampening their enthusiasm for murdering American soldiers, trying only to hold the country, absurdly, together. It will lead, when the results do not go the way the Sunnis believe they should go (given their inability to recognize their own numbers, and live in a fantasy world with numbers plucked from the sky).

Nor will that trial intended to bring all "Iraqis" together in a commmon revulsion. No such common revulsion at Saddam Hussein exists. In fact those Sunnis who might, at one point, have felt such revulsion are finding that the fellow doesn't quite seem so bad after all, given that he kept Sunnis in power.

All sorts of unintended consequences are following, one upon the heel of another, in the whole Iraq business. It need not have been. It would not have been, Iraq would not have been one surprise after another, had both Islam, and the history of Iraq, been studied and thoroughly assimilated. By the Pentagon. By the State Department. By the Executive Branch. By journalists.

Why wasn't it?

Posted by: Hugh at December 14, 2005 11:35 AM

They probably felt that "vote early, vote often" was worth a try.

Posted by: 3812Michelle at December 14, 2005 11:38 AM

Over breeding amongst muslims in Iraq is a lie. It is all the bloody forged papers that distorted the truth.....phew what a relief.

Posted by: Naseem at December 14, 2005 12:00 PM

Bush apparently believes that it is sufficient to invoke the "scoffers" who scoffed at Japan and Germany, and their prospects for "democracy." One does not know where to begin with this. With the matter of Islam? With the fact that Iraq was not "defeated" by the Americans, with all of its cities lying in ruins, and millions of "Iraqis" killed, and with no hope of anything except through acceptance of an American-imposed political system, and considerable tampering with economic and social structures as well, and with armies of occupation that stayed on for decades and even now, there are American troops in bases, in both Germany and Japan (Okinawa). With the fact that before Kodo came along to madden the military, there was a slow development of democratic ideas, and before the 1933 election that brought Hitler to power, the same could be said with far more force of Germany. Or would one begin with the most obvious difference: that in Iraq, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein ended the despotic rule that, through that very despotism, held Iraq together, and that the interests of Kurds and Arabs, or of Sunni Arabs and Shi'a Arabs, as to distribution of wealth and power, simply cannot be reconciled, at least not by the Americans, and the future of Iraq will undoubtedly be decided, sooner or later, by military and other means, where such distribution of wealth and power will be decided by means other than the ballot.

Posted by: Hugh at December 14, 2005 2:27 PM

according to US military sources, and other sources in Iraq, this story is bogus. seems what ever NY times says people beleive their BS! l heard some Iraqi women on the radio out of Iraq, say to the effect that if anyone who does not appreciate what the Amer. people and Pres.Bush did for Iraq can go to hell! now isnt that great coming from a women in Iraq!! she has more guts and bravado than any liberal or pessimist!! and yes l heard her words on the radio.. thanks to Rush! and yeah you also hear
from soldiers just out of Iraq!

Posted by: Lulu at December 14, 2005 2:35 PM

Gasbag: You're back. Try to get some rest.

Posted by: Havoc at December 14, 2005 3:18 PM

Hugh said "Then, renewed fury at the outcome."

I am not going to share your prediction of the obvious. Based on the reaction of Bush supporters here, I will remain silent, and share in their amazed incredulity (again) when Iraq doesn't blossom into an oasis of freedom and democracy and peace and prosperity.

It's like the old raindancers a century ago; if the rains don't come, it must be because one of the dancers didn't properly follow the ceremony to appease the rain gods.

If democracy doesn't flourish, it must be because liberals in Congress didn't give it enough time and money, or because the media is only focusing on the negative, or because we are not supporting the "moderate Islamic" candidates. Never realizing that there is a totally different set of physics controlling the outcome, independent of our raindance.

Posted by: special_guest at December 14, 2005 3:19 PM

Havoc:

Courtesy and respect for all, please, or we will all be bidding you a fond farewell.

Or at least a farewell.

And remember: calling someone a "gasbag" doesn't really constitute a sustained argument.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at December 14, 2005 3:59 PM

Havoc appears to struggle and become frustrated with the many forms of nuances and referenced points that Hugh so colorfully uses in his comments. There is no question that Hugh is an extremely well read, and highly retentive author. I certainly admire his style of writing and always look forward to his comments. Though I can't speak to all the references that are expounded on unless I do some research myself, I always have the greatest respect for Hughs abilities as a writer.

Posted by: Mackie at December 14, 2005 4:57 PM

aren't you special , special quest...democracy is not neat and tidy, its an idea that is worth fighing for! there have been religious fanatics through out history. the PC left has created a monster in our society and with the help of the media lies to all of us! l am not a doom and gloom person, and believe in the humanity of people.. islam will be defeated with democracy, and that is why monsters of likes of bin laden has declared war on the west. wheter the Bush administration pleases you or not, they are trying to deal with it, by taking the fight to them. by bringing in democracy will only weaken the islamofacists! there are so many naysayers here and you give so much power to a bunch of pieces of crap living in caves! the more these islamofacists kill and maim innocent people, and yeah mostly their own, people of the west will realize the truth behind islam! and with books and websites such as this will give us the knowledge to fight and destroy this cult of death!

Posted by: Lulu at December 14, 2005 5:26 PM

"l am not a doom and gloom person, and believe in the humanity of people.. islam will be defeated with democracy, and that is why monsters of likes of bin laden has declared war on the west."
-- from a posting above

"Believe in the humanity of people" -- a Hallmark Card sentiment simply will not do. As for Bin Laden declaring "war on the West" because of his opposition to "democracy" -- this is false. The opposition is to Infidels. Infidel democracies, Infidel monarchies, Infidel anything. The Shi'a in Iraq are no more well-disposed toward democracy in the abstract than the Sunni; it just happens that they constitute 60% of the population, and thus are able to force a redistribution of power and money through "democracy," a temporary going-through-the-motions that pleases the Americans who are helping to suppress the Sunnis, to train the Shi'a, and -- who knows? -- may even leave some valuable equipment behind that the Sh'a can put to use in future conflicts.

Why this whole business of "democracy" -- imperfectly understood, primitively defined -- got started as the American Mission to the World, the Infidel Man's Burden -- is unclear. But it looks more like a waste and a misunderstanding of the nature and instruments of the real menace. And that menace is not the absence of democracy in the Muslim world -- it is all those who take the tenets of Islam, vis-a-vis treatment of Infidels, seriously. Or who, at some point in the future, could begin to take those tenets more to heart than they have in the past. And that possiblity is a permanent one, as the example of transiently "secularist" Turkey indicates.

That's it.

Posted by: Hugh at December 14, 2005 5:55 PM

Hugh l dont buy or read Halmark cards. Binladen has a wide spectrum on those on his hate list. but it was his statements with the ABC reporter, stating he did not want any Western influence in the lands of isalm, meaning Saudi Arabia. you are right about the meaning of islam and that we cannot fool ourselves
with its doctrine. What l disagree with you is that
by introducing some form of democracy we can change
their idoleology. although not perfect, even our democracy there were no freedom for women to vote till early 1900's. Democracy is the silver bullet from the west to destroy islam the two cannot co-exist peacefully. add a few liberals into iraq and you will have a tamed muslim country..can we send over michael moore?

Posted by: Lulu at December 14, 2005 6:13 PM

"Democracy is the silver bullet from the west to destroy islam..."
-- from a posting above

On what basis do you write this? Does the experience of Turkey support this? In that country, in order to save the nation-state, a war hero and quasi-enlightened despot systematically tried to constrain and contain the political and social power of Islam, and after his death in 1938 his followers loyally carried on his legacy, and furthermore elaborted and extended still further the Cult of Ataturk and of the Turkish nation (for which everything was claimed, as far back as the Hittites), which was clearly a substitute for the Cult of Muhammad. And Turkey had as much "democracy" as any Muslim state ever has had -- certainly far more than Iraq has, or will have.

And what was the result? Did Islam wither away, or did it reveal that it is a permanent feature, and that it is resurgent in Turkey because the advanced secular part of the population will always and everywhere be outnumbered by the primitive part, and that primitive part, in a Muslim society, will always want a return to more Islam.

There is no "silver bullet." "Democracy" is not a panacea. It may even be, if appropriate leaders do not appear in the Western world, be more of a danger to Infidels than to Islam.

Posted by: Hugh at December 14, 2005 6:22 PM

BinLaden and Co. want us out because they can see and they fear the "corruption" of islam.
They see their "black and white" world going to pieces.
There would be no other realistic reason for the attacks. Their primary objective is elimination of Western influence in the islamic world. World domination is a fantasy, one that must follow the first objective to be "credible".

Posted by: kentim at December 14, 2005 6:24 PM

Muslims, e.g. in Iran, Egypt and Iraq seem to have a proclivity for voting for islam...predicting the results of any "bring democracy to the mid-east" campaign is a crap-shoot not worth the costs.

Posted by: otterfisher at December 14, 2005 6:29 PM

BBC dec7.05

"Egyptian police have shot dead six people during protests by Islamists barred from voting during the final stage of the parliamentary election.
Live rounds were fired along with tear gas and rubber bullets as police struggled to keep Muslim Brotherhood supporters from reaching polling stations.

The banned party, whose candidates stood as independents, has made large gains, winning nearly 20% of seats."

Muslim Brotherhood wants a state ruled by islamic law..couple more elections and they'll prolly get one.

Posted by: otterfisher at December 14, 2005 6:45 PM

Islamic democracy; "one man, one vote, one time"

From then on theocracy.

Iran has discovered that hey, democracy can be fun! Especially when played a la Richard Daley or Lyndon Johnson

You forget Florida, Jeb Bush, Ohio, Diebold,,etc.Robert.

Stuffing ballot boxes, gerrymandering, rigging elections is the American way (sadly).

Posted by: Nariz at December 14, 2005 6:47 PM

"World domination is a fantasy"
--- from a posting above

Not to a fantasist -- or millions of them -- it isn't. The first lesson to take in is not to assume the kind of rationality, rational calculation as we understand it. Servier's "The Psychology of the Musulman," now available on-line, and similar studies help make less impenetrable a different world-view, a different psychology.

For that matter, defectors from Islam -- see www.faithfreedom.org, are invaluable for those wishing to understand what some can't quite bring themselves to believe.

In the same way, in the 1930s, some were content to dismiss and mock Hitler, to see him as a clown incapable of doing real damage (how could Germany conceivably think it might be able to defeat the Great Powers France, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, along with other formidable smaller powers, including Poland, Holland, Belgium, and so on. Why, it simply wasn't possible. It was a fantastic idea. They would never try it. And that is why for so long so many simply regarded Hitler as a big joke, a figure of fun. Mock him, but do not take him seriously. Chaplin, for example, in "The Great Dictator" thought he was producing an anti-Nazi film. Yes, and No. Yes, because he ridiculed Hitler. No, because in depicting him as a clown, he helped lull, for a while longer, those who saw the film into complacency. Churchill, who had spent a lifetime studying history, and engaging directly with all sorts of men, and taking part in all sorts of events, did not see Hitler that way. Reading history had given Churchill an understanding that came not only from his own immediate experience, which was far beyond anything White House advisers, or think-tank "experts" or Fellows in thisandthat, have experienced. But he also had the leisure to read and to think about what he read. That made a diffrence. He did not take Hitler and the Nazis lightly. He did not think they were a joke. He did not dismiss them as fantasists.

And how could Imperial Japan ever think it might be able to attack and swallow, like a cobra, all of vast, undigestable China? And the Americans, with their soldiers in the Philippines? And the British stronghold of Singapore and in India? And the Dutch ruling in the East Indies? Not to mention all the locals who would fight back. No, certainly Japan might be run by slightly wild people, but they couldn't, wouldn't, be crazy enough to do what they turned out to methodically plan to do, and did.

And surely Muslims in the West, rampaging in France and Australia, killing and threatening to kill local leaders in Holland, in Norway, attacking the free press in Denmark, holding rallies to denounce the French in the middle of Paris, and the English in the middle of London --surely this is all just a way of acting out "fantasies" and there is nothing to worry about.

The assumption should be that most of them mean what they say. And many more who do not say, but think, agree and owe their loyalty to Islam and the umma al-islamiyya, in a way that simply confounds the innocent, rational Infidel.

Islam, and those who believe in it, or who even not believing, nonetheless are likely, in the end, to offer their loyalty to fellow Muslims, must be understood and taken seriously.

Tens of millions of Muslims now live behind what they consider to be enemy -- i.e. Infidel -- lines, and that they are settling in, and attempting to change the societies in which they live, and far from lying low, are aggressively attacking, using whatever weapons are available including, of course, clever exploitation of the rights that those same tolerant states offer as guarantees for its (presumably loyal) citizens.

And yet, despite all the evidence, the Western world continues to refuse to look at the evidence, refuses even to read, and study, what is in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, and what the history of Muslim conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims -- so similar from Spain to the East Indies, and whether the Infidels subjugated were Jews or Christians, Hindus or Buddhists -- teaches us, if only we will pay attention and stop being deliberately distracted students, or still worse, truants who refuse to attend the lessons altogether.

Yes, a fantastic situation. But not a fantasy. And Muslims are not merely "fantasists" when the idea of world domination is dreamed of. It may not come to be, but in the mere trying, horrible things have happened, are happening, and will happen. Why should we, by our inaction and inattention, choose to make things as difficult and unnecessarily painful for us, the inoffensive Infidels, as possible?

Posted by: Hugh at December 14, 2005 6:49 PM

Lulu said "there are so many naysayers here and you give so much power to a bunch of pieces of crap living in caves!"

We are not giving power to anyone; we are merely pointing out the power that they are using, the power that you do not recognize. The power is not the piece of crap OBL living in a cave, kill him and another OBL will take his place. The power is the writings of Muhammed. The Qur'an is the power that OBL uses to rally his "troops" and to raise money for more attacks. It is the power that fuels Islamic insurgencies all around the world. You think that power doesn't exist, that Islam has no response to calls for democracy.

The unstated assumption you are making is that "they are just like us", they want the same things we do: democracy, peace, freedom, prosperity. Well, surprise, there are different cultures in the world, who have different apirations than ours, different ways of looking at things. The jihadists plainly state that they do not want any of those four goals; the silent Ummah do not disagree with the jihadists. By their silence, they show their tacit support. In the end, their goals (a worldwide Caliphate living under strict Sharia law) is incompatible with our goals (democracy and freedom for all).

I agree with you, democracy is a right worth fighting for. Too bad they don't think so. Too bad they are fighting against it, not for it.

Posted by: special_guest at December 14, 2005 7:00 PM

BBC/dec1/o5

"The Muslim Brotherhood's unprecedented electoral success, which it is expected to consolidate in the final round, has changed the balance of power between the government and the opposition.

It has given the brotherhood, banned from open political activity, a legal platform.

With the protection of parliamentary immunity, its newly-elected members will be able to challenge and question the ruling National Democratic Party's policies without fearing arrest and harassment.

Secular opposition falters

The election has also uncovered the weakness of the secular and liberal opposition in Egypt.

While the Islamists have achieved success in the face of regular harassment and detentions, the legally-recognised parties have failed to make substantial gains despite having greater freedom.

For the country's Christian minority, the election has also been a disaster.

The Copts view the Muslim Brotherhood with suspicion.

Coptic representation is not expected to be bigger than in previous parliaments - only one Copt has been elected so far.

World attention

But this is not an exclusively Egyptian affair.

The vote is being watched closely in other Arab countries, particularly those with Islamist parties.

Egypt has traditionally been the political trend-setter for the region, and groups similar to the Muslim Brotherhood from Morocco to Kuwait will watch how the Egyptian group uses its electoral gains to promote their common goal: the creation of an Islamic state. "

Posted by: otterfisher at December 14, 2005 7:09 PM

special_guest writes:
"The unstated assumption you are making is that "they are just like us", they want the same things we do: democracy, peace, freedom, prosperity."

Good point. It's an erroneous assumption. The
whole world doesn't want to kick back with a Bud
and watch "Baywatch" reruns. They'd rather watch a
DVD of some Jew getting his head sawed off by a
mohammadan.

Mohammadans aren't on the same page as the rest of the world, not even close.

It's a pity, because things were looking good at the
end of the 20th century, but I think "A Time To
Kill" draws closer.

Posted by: American at December 14, 2005 7:19 PM

Hugh,

You write often about Iraq but relatively infrequently about Afghanistan. Why is that? In Afghanistan they've had "free and fair" elections and now journalists can be jailed for blasphemy by democratically elected officials.

My concern about Iraq is not that by staying we will be missing the opportunity of allowing full-scale Muslim-on-Muslim violence. That is pretty much a given sooner or later.

A "rapid" removal of U.S. forces from Iraq is estimated to take three months. And that is just getting them and foreign support workers to Kuwait. What I don't want to see is the U.S. leaving in the midst of a deteriorating situation with troops having to shoot their way out, another Saigon-like scene of panicked civilians scrambling for the last helicopter out of the Green Zone as the mortar rounds fall. When Zarqawi emerges from his hideout to claim victory he will be claiming victory over America. Not victory or Bush and the neocons. Victory over America by the forces of Jihad! "We beat Russia! We beat America! Who can stand against us?"

There is no way they are going to beat our soldiers on the battlefield. They can only do it in the court of world opinion and media hype. War is a test of will even more than a test of strategy. However misguided our war aims may be, if they can claim to have broken our will they can claim victory. If they win they number of people who will join them in the next round will skyrocket.

We will leave Iraq and Afghanistan. The question is the message we send as we walk away. Is it going to be:
1) The Murtha/Sheehan version. "Oh our poor soldiers! They can't take much more of this! We should have never tried to intervene in the affairs of you brutal, horrible people! American lives are the most important thing in the world!"
Or
2) "You knocked down two towers, we lost three thousand. We knocked down two countries, we lost 2-3000. Maybe they weren't the right two countries but we can fix that next time. Good luck with your democracy!"

It true that there are a lot of other more important things we should be doing to counteract jihad as well: immigration reform/border control, deporting or jailing the active jihad support structure, education/information warfare. It’s just that getting tagged as losing a war that we "won" doesn't advance any of that.

Posted by: Malta_1565 at December 14, 2005 7:25 PM

BBC

"A new constitutional amendment means that only parties that control 10% of the lower and upper houses of parliament can field candidates in future presidential elections."

So, Muslim Brotherhood(with 20%) will now field a presidential candidate..democracy to the mideast..be careful what you wish for.

Posted by: otterfisher at December 14, 2005 7:26 PM

also, no other opposition party has attained the
10% power required to run a prez candidate..
so, in next election it could be Mubarak's ruling
National Democratic Party's candidate against The
Muslim Brotherhood candidate..

Posted by: otterfisher at December 14, 2005 7:34 PM

The Muslim Brotherhood only got 20% because Mubarak deployed troops to keep MB voters away from the polling places. I thought they ran as "independants" not as a party.

Posted by: Malta_1565 at December 14, 2005 7:36 PM

BBC re: Prez election which Mubarak won..the statistics do not bode well for him or his son winning in next election..

"Election rules

Forced by outside pressure into an election it never wanted, Mr Mubarak's government set out not to adapt to change, but to control it, in the process drawing a new template for cynical election management.

A low voter turnout could undermine President Mubarak's authority
Rule number one: allow only nationally unfamiliar figures or out-and-out no-hopers to stand against the president.

Rule number two: ban the Muslim Brotherhood - a non-violent group that's hugely popular on the street, precisely because it provides the medical, sporting and social security network that the government doesn't.

Rule number three: stop the last voter registration drive just before the announcement of the country's first ever multi-candidate race.

With the full weight of the ruling party machine on his side, a Mubarak victory was always inevitable, but what can be said about his mandate?

A population of 75 million people, 32 million declared eligible as properly registered.

The most generous independent observers put the turnout at about 15%.

So if Mr Mubarak sweeps the board with, say, 70%, a quick run through the maths gives us fewer than four million people endorsing the president.

Even taking account of the kids below voting age, four out of 75 isn't so much a landslide as a rattle of loose stone."

Posted by: otterfisher at December 14, 2005 7:48 PM

l did not fall off a turnip truck! changes do not come overnight! l understand that islam is a dangerous cult, needed to be destroyed. we can do this on several fronts... first educate the west, via websites, books, family, friends! try to vote in politicians with balls, not PC friendly, screw the liberal media! help create laws for border control,
slow or stop immigration from countries that not democratic as a starter! then try installing democracy in a country like Iraq, keep the islamofacist busy in their own backyard. one known truth, a Democratic country has never attacked another democratic country.

Posted by: Lulu at December 14, 2005 7:56 PM

from Dhimmi Carter's culpability in Pahlavi's overthrow(if any) to invasion of Iraq and pressure on Egypt for democratic election it almost would appear the U.S. is unwittingly abetting
the establishment of an islamic caliphate..
..next step..pressure the saudi's to have democratic elections too..

Posted by: otterfisher at December 14, 2005 8:09 PM

oops...forgot U.S pressure on Israel to facilitate palestinian elections in which Hamas, et. al., will gain international legitimacy as elected representatives via DEMOCRATIC elections.

Posted by: otterfisher at December 14, 2005 8:29 PM

Hugh,
I did not mean to insinuate that fantasy is harmless. It can be extremely dangerous.
That's what I think we're facing.

My point was basically, for that fantasy to have any chance of being seriously believed and realized they need to get us out of the M.E. first. And they know this. And so do the fence-sitters. It f-cks up the fantasy otherwise, and creates cognitive-dissonance.(of course we get some of that too, which sucks)
And I think the influence we've had on them scares the hell out of the most fanatical nuts in the islamic world-- I think they think the people will not be able to resist, and islam will be pacified. By creating cognitive-dissonance in the islamic world, we can pursue methods of resolving it for them. With positive and negative reinforcement. The jihadis generally only give negative reinforcement.
We offer both.

I think we need to be in close proximity to the source of our problem in order to influence events and stay on the offensive.

I'll check into Servier's Musselman psychology.

For others:
http://www.apa.org/books/4318830s.html

Posted by: kentim at December 14, 2005 8:32 PM

http://musulmanbook.blogspot.com/2005/11/preface-mind-of-musulman.html

Posted by: kentim at December 14, 2005 8:45 PM

democracy and islam dwell in a state of syzygy..

Posted by: otterfisher at December 14, 2005 10:24 PM

Malta: Your post to Hugh was well said. Thanks.

Posted by: texan at December 15, 2005 3:42 AM

RE: These elections will not "heal" and will not lead to the Sunnis dampening their enthusiasm for murdering American soldiers, trying only to hold the country, absurdly, together.

Read the following, is their a possibility, even remotely that you could be wrong in your assessment?

"Iraqi officials said initial indications were that as many as 11 million people cast ballots, which, if the estimate holds true, would put the overall turnout at more than 70 percent…. With more than 375,000 American and Iraqi troops and police officers fanned out across the country, the American command here reported only 35 armed attacks, about half the daily average…. Iraqis streamed to the polls in cities and villages across the country, some bringing their children, some pushing wheelchairs, many dressed in their finest clothes…. The day's most dramatic events unfolded in the country's Sunni Arab neighborhoods, where hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who had boycotted the election in January came out this time to vote…. 'Last time, if you voted, you died,' said Abdul Jabbar Mahdi, a Sunni Arab who brought his wife and three children to a polling station in the ordinarily tense neighborhood of Adamiya. 'God willing, this election will lead to peace.'…

"For a day, at least, many Iraqi Sunnis seemed won over, if not to the American presence in their country, then to the idea that they could realize their interests by the ballot and not the gun. The big Sunni turnout was helped along by the declarations of several insurgent groups, like the Islamic Army, that they would refrain from attacking polling centers…. The insurgents not only failed to stop the election, but it appears that they did not even really try…. The comments by the Sunni voters, though anecdotal, suggested that a good number of them had stayed away from the polls in January not because they were disenchanted with the democratic process, but because they were afraid of being killed. Indeed, the apparent confusion within the insurgency has prompted American diplomats to say they have succeeded in driving a wedge between the most violent groups, like Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and the more nationalist-minded ones."

Posted by: learjet0450 at December 15, 2005 9:06 PM

Sunni articipation in the elections is compatible with continuing support for attacks on American soldiers and on Shi'a. Once the ballots have been counted, and the Sunnis discover that they will not have the power to which they believe they are naturally entitled. Since they believe, despite the evidence, that they constitute 42% of the country, and are participating in the elections only in order, now, to try every way they can to preserve or not lose their power, such participation is likely not to be a hopeful sign, once they realize how slim their gains, but cause for furious and renewed violence.

Two other things will keep attention focussed on Sunni-Shi'a hostilities:

1) the trial of Saddam Hussein and his acommplices, which instead of "bringing Iraqis together" in shared horror, helps to emphasize the Sunni rallying-round Saddam Hussein, and minimizing of the charges against him, and further infuriates the Shi'a and the Kurds

2) the attempt by the Sunnis to rewrite the Constitution, so that more power is given to the central government in order that the Kurds and the Shi'a, in their respective regions, with their respective control of oil fields, do not have the political autonomy, and consequently greater share of the oil wealth, that if the Constitution as written and accpeted at this point stands, they will have.

And divisions will be exacerbated by #1 and #2 and, as the Americans start to leave, by worries over who gets what from those departing Americans.

My recommendation: leave absolutely nothing in the way of weaponry or high tech devices (computers, and so on) behind.

Nothing.

Posted by: Hugh at December 15, 2005 9:41 PM

One more thing.

The election was not exactly like something conducted in Ohio or Vermont. The entire country was shut down, and the borders sealed. There was heavy security at every polling place. People went off not to "vote their consciences" but to vote, most often, for a party that was said to "represent" their group. Those who voted for the 555 Shi'a Coalition were not carefully investigating its stand -- they were simply voting for the Shi'a, as Shi'a. The same for the Kurds, and the same for the Sunnis.

Only those who voted for Allawi, and a few other "secularists" =- a word meaning, in this context, not peope who are not devout Muslims, but people who are less concerned with the particular kind of Islam one practices (and in Allawi's case, I suspect that he is largely indifferent to religion) -- could be described as voting for parties not representing a particular sectarian or ethnic group.

So let's see how many votes the Shi'a former Ba'athist and brave Allawi gets, from the more enlightened Sunnis and Shi'a. That will say something.

In Mosul, by the way, Sunni police (paid for, trained, and armed by the Americans) got into fights with local Kurdish soldiers (paid for, trained, and armed by the Americans).

A sign of things to come. If only we would permit it.

Posted by: Hugh at December 15, 2005 9:47 PM