Centerfield

You can't pick your relatives or the people who belong to your political party.

These people are just painting themselves into a corner where their words will be used as judgement for their 'official' title of pundit.

Posted by: EG at January 30, 2005 02:09 PM

If I were looking at it dispassionately, as a business investment, I would say that the initial returns from the invasion, in the spring of 2003, were lucrative, but that the investment turned sour toward the end of 2003, and is now in the red. The election results give us some hope that it can get back into the black.

Yglesias is wrong in saying that the election itself changes nothing. It will change Iraqi perceptions of where the majority of Iraqis are. An actual poll is much different and superior than a public opinion poll. Clearly, public opinion is not with the terrorists, except in their Sunni strongholds.

Now, let's hope the counting goes smoothly, and there are no controversies like the one in the Washington governor's race.

Posted by: rickheller at January 30, 2005 06:00 PM

Another thought.

It's been said that the Iraqi security forces are riddled with agents for the insurgents. That may be true.

But what's probably more accurate to say is that some people are playing a double game, keeping up relationships with both sides, and testing the wind to determine which is more likely to be the winning side. This vote puts some wind into the sails of the incoming Iraqi government.

Posted by: rickheller at January 30, 2005 06:15 PM

I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy." --Captain Renault

Posted by: Tully at January 30, 2005 06:51 PM

It's silly to say this is anything but good news. But there's a long way to go and many ways this can turn. Clearly, the insurgents overestimated their ability to intimidate people (or, more likely, underestimated the appeal of voting). But if the government Iraq gets turns out to be corrupt and unable to deliver to the Iraqi people, democracy may not look so good. From the United States perspective, we are banking on the idea that democracy will eventually marginalize the militants. I think that is probably true, but we may see a lot of anti-American posturing. In the short run, at least, it's not clear that we will benefit from a democratic government in Iraq.

I must admit that I am having trouble divorcing my feelings about the war from the election results. I'm certainly glad the elections are coming off apparently well and some there seem to be some good signs. I can't root against the US as a lot of the liberals seem to be able to and I certainly can't root for more bad things to happen to Iraqis or to our troops. On the other hand, I continue to have grave misgivings about the way this war was planned, sold to the American public, and conducted. I remain unconvinced that bringing democracy at the point of a gun in the absence of other reasons for war is either an effective or moral policy even if ultimately some kind of democratic government comes to pass. Obviously, If in 20 years Iraq is a stable, prosperous democracy with moderate policies, I will have to say (if I still have the ability to speak at that point) that I was wrong. Look at the American Firsters before WW II--they have been pretty much discredited by history. I suspect the liberal bloggers are having a lot more trouble with this than I am--it's difficult to acknowledge that you might be wrong or that at least the situation is more complex than you thought.

IMO, whether this adventure is ultimately a success or not depends on what happens in the rest of the Middle East. If this truly creates a model for the other countries and is therefore a harbinger of change and eventually marginalizes radical Islamists, then you would have to say the policy was correct even if you are troubled by the means used. I'm not ready to go that far, but it does seems others in the Middle East are looking at the elections with some envy.

Posted by: MWS at January 30, 2005 08:16 PM

In Kurdish and Shia-dominated parts of Iraq I certainly agree that the purple fingers represent a slap in the face to the resistance forces. But, in Sunni areas there is reason for concern, IMO.

I just read a report out of Samarra saying that only about 1,400 out of 200,000 voted. I can't help but wonder how many of those 1,400 will still be among the living a week from now.

In other parts of Iraq you could just about get a decent lineup of possible resistance fighters just based on the lack of a purple-dyed finger. In Sunni areas, the opposite seems to hold true.

Posted by: Kevin at January 30, 2005 09:38 PM

Let's assume for a moment that this is a turning point, and things go well from now on. Iraq becomes a democracy, and American troops withdraw. How will this go down in history?

Once feelings cool off on both sides, I think people will regard this as an experience they do not wish to repeat. War opponents will admit that it was not a castatrophe, but war supporters, no longer feeling a need to "support the troops," will admit that we are paying a heavy price for political reform in another country.

Posted by: rickheller at January 30, 2005 10:39 PM

Most wars are experiences that one does not wish to repeat. There is always a heavy price. Will it have been worth it? Ask an Iraqi theater vet 20 years from now--or an Iraqi. Their opinions will mean more than mine ever will.

Posted by: Tully at January 30, 2005 10:52 PM

I can't root against the US as a lot of the liberals seem to be able to and I certainly can't root for more bad things to happen to Iraqis or to our troops. On the other hand, I continue to have grave misgivings about the way this war was planned, sold to the American public, and conducted

Can we stop smearing the liberals? Seriously, how many respected American liberals can you name that are actually rooting against the US or hoping for more Iraqi suffering?

No, the problem when liberals express grave misgivings about the planning, selling, and conduct of the war, the Hannitys and Limbaughs accuse liberals of rooting against the US. Please don't add yourself to this foolishness.

Yes there are some fringe leftists who think US is the fount of all evil, just as there are some wingnuts who think the US is always right. But just because Yglesias doesn't properly celebrate Iraqi elections doesn't mean he's rooting against the US.

Posted by: Oberon at January 30, 2005 11:06 PM

I mostly agree with MWS.

This is good, but, though I'm happy that this might turn out for the best for Iraq, I can't be as happy as I should be given the dishonest way this war was "sold" and the inept way it was conducted. The administration didn't undertake this for humanitarian reasons--that rationale was invoked after it turned out that the reason for the war was a sham--as was obvious to objective observers from almost the beginning.

So, while our unjustifiable actions may end up having very good consequences, we can't really count such accidental consequences as an achievement.

Furthermore, those of us who are convinced that the war was undertaken for bad reasons are a bit unhappy to say the least that the president who undertook that war might get boatloads of undeserved credit for it. The really bad thing about that is that this will then encourage irrational actions on the part of the U.S. in the future. It's absurd that more Americans aren't livid about how we were tricked into going into Iraq.

I disagree, though, about imposing democracy by force. I'm generally *for* that. Remember, doing so doesn't mean forcing ordinary folks to do anything they don't want to do--the people you have to apply force against are the anti-democratic forces preventing the ordinary folks from having a say in government.

If this had been a humanitarian war from the beginning, and if the administration had been anything like honest with us or with the rest of the world about what was going on, I would have been all for it.

As it is, I can only be relieved.

Posted by: Winston Smith at January 31, 2005 09:16 AM

Seriously, how many respected American liberals can you name that are actually rooting against the US or hoping for more Iraqi suffering?

Since I don't respect those that are rooting on the insurgency, how could I answer that? :-)

Seriously, "respected" is a question-begging and relative term. Michael Moore has been rooting for the insurgency. Is MM a "respected liberal?" A majority chunk of the Democratic Undergound seems to rooting on the insurgency, and even now bemoaning the success of the elections. Are they "respected liberals?" Ted Kennedy has certainly seemed to be rooting for failure. Is Ted Kennedy a "respected liberal?"

Some of the noisiest and most visible members of the left have certainly been openly rooting for doom and gloom. Whether or not they're "respected liberals" is a call for liberals to make.

Posted by: Tully at January 31, 2005 11:11 AM

I'm very excited by the election. At the same time I agree that the election success is a separate issue from the wisdom, planning and execution of the war. We need to continue to ask ourselves if such endeavors "are worth it?"

Now granted its way too early to tell if this democratic movement will continue to flourish. BUT if does my question is, "By what other means would the people of Iraq have gotten to this position?"

Posted by: Chris at January 31, 2005 01:54 PM

Just a factual correction note:
It appears that the 72-percent number was a fabrication, and the purple dye was not a protest, it was an attempt to stop double voting.

Posted by: Bob J Young at January 31, 2005 03:21 PM

Sometimes when I read comments in here...I wonder how many gallons of Free Republic Kool-Aid are actually handed out each morning. It's disturbing.

"Rooting on the insurgency" is a bogus claim, first of all. A lot of those people fighting in Iraq are actual Iraqis. Some of them probably believe they're doing what's best for their country.

Further..the cost/benefit analysis of the Iraq invasion isn't exactly in the US' favor at the moment. Thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead. Innocent civilians. 1400+ US soldiers are dead and thousands more are irrepairably wounded.

Conservatives and conservative leaners have consistently ignored this very fundamental part of the portrait of this war. Not to mention the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on the US.

As I blogged at PK yesterday, I sincerely hope this election is the turning point it's being billed as. But we've had other such billings in the past...and they've turned out to not be what we were told.

I sincerely hope this time it sticks. But I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: carla at January 31, 2005 08:05 PM

A lot of those people fighting in Iraq are actual Iraqis. Some of them probably believe they're doing what's best for their country.

And a lot of members of the KKK who killed people were actual Americans, and some probably believed that they were doing what was best for their country. That doesn't mean that they were not evil, pure and simple.

What would you say if a white "insurgency" had developed in South Africa after the end of apartheid?

Posted by: Todd Pearson at January 31, 2005 10:07 PM

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. --Michael Moore

Posted by: Tully at January 31, 2005 10:31 PM

Where was the UN during this process?

Posted by: Chris at January 31, 2005 11:01 PM

And a lot of members of the KKK who killed people were actual Americans, and some probably believed that they were doing what was best for their country. That doesn't mean that they were not evil, pure and simple.

What would you say if a white "insurgency" had developed in South Africa after the end of apartheid?

So sayeth Todd.

Indeed. But when you turn it around a bit:

And a lot of members of the Minutemen who killed people were actual Americans, and some probably believed that they were doing what was best for their country. That doesn't mean that the British didnt' believe them to be evil, pure and simple.

Todd further asks:

What would you say if a white "insurgency" had developed in South Africa after the end of apartheid?

I'd say that if the situations aren't the same. The blacks and the whites were both indigenous at the time apartheid ended. In the case of Iraq, those individuals who are the "insurgency" are fighting a nonindigenous foe: namely, us.

Please understand..I'm not saying that those fighting the US are good guys. They may very likely be bad guys. But I'm saying that this is not a "pure and simple" or "black and white" a situation as it's being painted.

Posted by: carla at February 1, 2005 07:36 PM

Tully:

Moore has a point. Some of these people likely see themselves as we see the Minutemen. They believe themselves to be patriots, fighting for their country.

They're battling a foe that invaded their country. They could easily see us a tyrannical entity...abridging their rights to do as they believe.

Put yourselves in the shoes of the British during the US Colonial era. None of the British Colonies had parliamentary representation. It had been that way forever, as far as they were concerned. Then this upstart colony started demanding represenation. To the British...it was ludicrous and they didn't understand the need for it. It was against everything they believed to be correct.

The intent of the British was to bring the American colonies back into the fold. At first, most Americans wanted to remain British citizens. But it became apparent that we couldn't have our way...and we rebelled. They invaded and sent occupying forces. And (with a lot of help from the French), we vanquished them on our turf.

There's a lot of parallels to Iraq.

Posted by: carla at February 1, 2005 07:43 PM

Actually, there's just about NO parallel to the American Revolution. That's a really bad example. They're not fighting to get us out, they're fighting to put themselves back in--and they're spending most of their resources blowing up their fellow countrymen right now, in case you hadn't noticed. The Minute Men fought for universal representation, the "insurgents" appear to be fighting to stop it. They're not fighting for anyone's freedom, except their own freedom to restore a fascist state with themselves on top.

And Moore is clearly cheerleading the insurgents. But the question is, is Moore a "respected liberal?"

I'm saying that this is not a "pure and simple" or "black and white" a situation as it's being painted.

That I can agree with. Most things aren't.

Posted by: Tully at February 1, 2005 11:02 PM

So there are NO parallels between Iraq and the American Revolution?
Hmmmmmmm.

2005 USA: dominate superpower in the world
1776 Britain: dominate superpower in the world

2005 USA: Insurgents are looked down upon as Islamic fascist
1776 Britain: Revolutionaries are looked down upon as primitive colonials

2005 USA: Insurgents are morally inferior and hate freedom
1776 Britain: Revolutionaries are morally inferior for refusing to acknowledge the divine right of the king to rule.

2005 USA: Economic under tone of conflict: oil
1776 Britain: Economic under tone of conflict: pitch, wood and iron

2005 USA: US military generally considered a superior fighting force.
1776 Britain: British military generally considered a superior fighting force.

2005 USA: Insurgents badmouthed for not following rules of war.
1776 Britain: Revolutionaries badmouthed for not following rules of war

2005 USA: Elections are a major point of contention.
1776 Britain: Elections are a major point of contention.

Posted by: Bob J Young at February 3, 2005 02:36 PM