How do we judge success in Iraq?

Remove all ads!

I read this on andrewsullivan.com earlier tonight, and it made me think. I'm just interested in y'all's answer.

NOTE: This is not my response to the question, but Andrew's


HOW DO WE JUDGE SUCCESS? How do we tell if the Iraqi elections are a success? That they happen at all? Surely we should have a higher standard than that. Here are my criteria: over 50 percent turnout among the Shia and Kurds, and over 30 percent turnout for the Sunnis. No massive disruption of voting places; no theft of ballots. Fewer than 500 murdered. Any other suggestions for relevant criteria? Am I asking too much? I'm just thinking out loud. But it makes sense to have some guidelines before Sunday so we don't just fit what happens to our pre-existing hopes or rationalizations.

[ January 29, 2005, 16:52: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

Well to me the elections really can't be successful. I feel that Americans and the temporary Iraqi government are rushing the elections when the country in itself is not ready for elections. I mean for "security reasons" the people can't even know who they are voting for in there, for all they know they can be voting for Saddam Hussein. This is in my oppinion wrong and very undemocratic.

Now if we put this aside I feel that all parlamentary elections should have atleast 50% of all votes in the country to be valid, any less would be an undemocratic prosess. Another thing is that many places where votes are cast the elections are shadowed by violence and terror. This also is undemocratic, the population is preasured by the insurgents to abstain from voting and I think that many in Iraq value their lives more than this new "American Democracy" they are getting.

 

I would judge the elections a success if the resulting constitution is ratified as law...if not...well it's going to be a long couple of years ('06 and '07)...

 

Personally, I think the elections are a great thing for the Iraqi people. Those who choose to vote will reap the representation that they have chosen for themselves. My problem with the Iraqi War has never been the notion that representative government is a bad thing for Iraq. Although I have manifold problems with the entire war, in this particular instance, it feels as if democracy is being thrust on them. But ultimately after the new government takes shape, the Iraqis themselves can always change it into whichever system works best for them. I would hope through a peaceful, political solution.

IMO, if civil war is the result of the Iraq situation, and there is a continued American military presence, then the elections will not have been successful. This war may well work out for the Iraqis, but the war has been terrible for America. King George and corporate America will rebuild Iraq at the blood and expense of Americans. I have an idea -- since Shrub has done so much for Iraq and so little for America, perhaps we could give Iraq the unltimate "gift": George W. Bush as their new prez. So we can all cheer: "Go, George, go!...Just remember to take Dick with you. Cause that's about what you have done for us.

Edit: After letting this comment "cool" a bit, I decided that it was unjust to comment only on American loses in Iraq. The fact remains that Britain has also poured blood and treasure into this "effort" also. And the Iraqis have paid for their representative government with the wholesale destruction of their country and more than their own share of blood. I just wanted to be clear on that.

[ January 30, 2005, 04:37: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Thanks Chandos...your edit has reminded me why I like you.

I think that the elections themselves are a sign of success. I heard an interesting news story yesterday...about the Iraqi expatriots. There are almost a million of them around the world...Iraqi citizens who left their homeland during the oppression of the Sadam regime. They are doctors, lawyers, business people, shop keepers...250,000 of them in the West alone. These expatriots are flooding the polling places...there are 6 in the US...the nearest to me in Irvine, Ca.

Yes, the US is embroiled in a battle with terrorists in Iraq. It is a battle we can and will win...just like we could have won in Viet Nam. Once that battle is won...or once it appears to be nearly won...there is an incredible wealth of Iraqi expatriots waiting to return to the land they love. That flow will turn the tide...and it begins with the elections tomorrow.

As the votes are counted and as the terrorists realize that their most dire efforts did not postpone the election, but only insured that they have no voice in the new assembly...then the success of the US in Iraq will become apparent.

 

Some election! Most of the candidates are running anonymously, for good reason, so how do people even know who they're voting for? The locaton of many of the polling places is also secret, for the same good reason. Nor is Iraq awash with neutral observers of the democratic process in action. Nonetheless, I expect the following results, in this order (events may of course prove me wrong): A high voter turnout. Televised coverage of peaceful voting at selected locations. A triumph for democracy and the administration's policies. The actual elections. Extreme violence from Monday until Saturday. And so forth...

(And incidentally, fewer than 500 murdered is "success"? That's spooning soup with a sieve.)

[ January 30, 2005, 07:05: Message edited by: Cernak ]

 

One problem is that IMO the US troops have problems dealing with Iraqis as they ought to - just look at the arrests in Iraq and the treatment for the suspects - boot in the neck, handcuffs, hoods - all that in front of their families etc. The majority of US troops acted, and I do not doubt in their good intentions, oblivious to the local culture, except for the handful of special forces.

Why? This attempt to signal being "tough", was in fact highly counterproductive IMO because that part of the message only arrived at home in the US. A little bit like "made by Americans for Americans".

The problem is that IMO many Americans have problems not looking at Iraq through their blurred 911 goggles. The misperception that Saddam somehow was involved in 911 is still prevalent if one likes to believe the polls.

A passage from the Vietnam primer, an analysis of field experience suggests something else, and common sense suggests to agree:

Abu Ghraib contradicts field experience. My point is that finding the enemy demands familiarity with people and country, demands language skills. Iraqis are at the advantage here, and will always be.

I'm sort of pessimistic/ optimistic about the future of Iraq. A civil war won't be the result I believe, but I expect a long term sunni insurgency that will eventually be broken in about ten years after much bloodshed - unless the majority of Shias and Kurds quickly manage to divide the Sunnis and work out deals with Sunni moderates to fight the insurgency together.
That would be a desirable arrangement, but a difficult one as the moderates are putting their lives in danger.

The US leaving, will IMO actually help Iraqis - the foreign fighters are the least problem because they are foreigners, and a minority in the insurgency - without the US around they don't have much reason to butcher Iraqis. The Iraqis will no longer tolerate them and their actions - they no longer can claim legitimacy for their murders with their enemy gone.

The old conservative case againt social engeneering has still a point. It can't be the job of the US to take care that Iraq installs an exactly pro-western constitution with western standards. It's their land, their choice, and it has to take care of the in-country realities.

It is easy for the insurgents to refuse any arrangement where the US have meddled in - just because the US have meddled in. The US presence actually is an obstacle for pro-western elements in Iraq. By siding with the US they risk being blamed as Quislings, so the lower the US profile in Iraq, the better for both the US and Iraq.

US presence helps discredit both pro western Iraqis, and pro western positions.

One might argue with that but for the Iraqis who have lived in Iraq, there they notably differ from the overenthusiastic expatriates - and that's something that tends to get lost in the west, the US are still the country that bombed them for a decade and is responsible for uncounted deaths and for Iraqs descend from Middle East's most developed country to one of the poorest and most dangerous to live in. One might argue with that, too, but I'd say that's the Iraqi perception - with a boulder of truth in it.

Whatever the US motives, I still struggle with wether removing Saddam alone was worth it. I still think an exile deal for Saddam would have been not only possible but much preferrable, without the dissolution of the country.

Is the satisfaction to punish a notorious evildoer worth the wrecking of a whole country? One could have cared about justice later, but such a pragmatic approach would have been incompatible with the black and white US administration position - and Iraq's Baath party mandarins around would have made impossible the installation of one Mr. Chalabi ...

I'm pretty convinced that the US as an external power will for a long time carry the stamp 'occupier'.

The Iraqis as a people with national pride and identity will be very well aware of that and the distrust of US intentions will remain as long as they are there.

That is, when the US are serious with Iraqi sovereignty they will have to accept the Iraqi demand to leave the country.

The open question is if the Bush administration would be willing to do that after all they invested.

That will be the moment when I believe that the US motives there have indeed been altruistic - though IMO the liberation of the Iraqi people was just the handy byproduct of what the US adminstration actually wanted.

Success will be the restoration of public order and that is not something the Americans should be tasked with - only Iraqis can do that - it's their turf and that's what counts when fighting other locals. In fact, that's something US forces will never be able to achieve.

The US are to blame for the destruction of public order, the dissolution of the Iraqi army was a grandiose neocon idiocy. For that Bush and his crew bear the responsibility to aid the Iraqis ... according to the classic legal principle of responsibility that is best summed up: "You broke it, you fix it". But there are more subtle ways to do that than a constant military presence and permanent bases.

[ January 30, 2005, 23:35: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

IMO, they'll have no choice. If an elected gov't of Iraq tells the US to get out (or more likely, to consign themselves to isolated bases in Iraq just in case the Iraq gov't wants to draw on them in a crisis), they will have no choice. After the absence of WMD, Bush has had to invest too much in hyping democracy as the "real" reason for the war; he can't very well turn around and bad mouth democracy. Methinks even his most rabid supporters would have issue with that...

 

I dont know about that Bion. How many shifts have we had in reason for invasion now? Saddam was in 9/11... WMD... toppling a brutal dictator... I'm sure they are quite experienced in policy shift by now.

 

On the other hand, Takara, if you notice, this policy shift was anything but what the Repubs would call "nuanced": the shift was from fear of nuclear holocaust to the championing of freedom and democracy, and Americans really, really like to think of themselves as championing freedom and democracy. The US population already has very mixed feelings about the war in Iraq, and the only thing keeping people supportive is the idea that we are letting "freedom ring," as Bush might say. It would require far too much nuance to convince the US people that, OK the elections happened, but the party in power is in truth hostile to democracy because it is islamist, etc, so we have to defy them and stay on. If that happened 1) a clear US majority would demand that US troops come home (probably cursing the Iraqi people for not appreciating their sacrifices), and Bush's approval rating would fall through the floor; and 2) the US occupation would be doomed, and everyone, from the generals to the ground troops to the neocons, would admit it. So if a democratically elected Iraqi gov't, or even a majority of the population, would declare it's time for the US to go, they would be gone...

 

I'll agree that the shift this way would have been far easier then any possible shift back. Freedom has always been the American 'button' so to speak. If it is to do with freedom a public is bound to be more supportive, but I still feel that the administration might yet find a way to spin this back again.

 

IMO, Shrub could care less about the freedom of the Iraqi people. To get his four more years, this was the rhetoric he had to produce, and in many ways it paid off for him politically. Also, IMO, his dreams of an American Empire are on the rocks, so to speak, as a result of this election. But I think he was forced to abandon them some time ago and this was the line he used to save himself politically when the WMD failed to appear on cue.

The downside is that he will use the political capital produced by this to continue his attacks on American working people. The upside is that it is great for the Iraqi people who have suffered in all of King George II failed schemes of empire building.

 

I'd love to think you're right about the empire building, Chandos, but I don't think Bush & Co. have thown in the towel just yet. See Seymour Hersch's article in the current--or it might be last weeks-- New Yorker about their plans for Iran. Hersch's record as an investigative journalist is well-nigh impeccable.

 

I think that they feel very much vindicated by the re-election, and that will help to further insultate them in their echo chamber.

I imagine that the applause and ceremony they get in D.C. must be impressive - one can easily forget it's not about him but about the office he holds.

Rice's insulted reaction on the absolutely justified senate questioning, or grilling, by Senator Boxer was tell-tale: "How dare thee!"

The administration owes an explanation to Senate and public - but, just as Gonzales' with his memory lapses, refuses to explain.

The problem is that they are not talking to anyone outside the administration and this is an incestuous habit that is pretty dangerous. The principle of accountability aims on just that - a reality check.

People who think to sit in the driver seat of history are fools, and act foolish.

EDIT:
Three articles from today's Asia Times
So, who really did win?
Why the Insurgents may be the winners
Why the US will not leave Iraq from ever scpetic Pepe Escobar

[ January 31, 2005, 14:21: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I agree completely. From both a tactical and strategic standpoint, I'm disappointed in the US democrats that tried to use yesterday to attack Bush by downplaying the elections. That seemed plain stupid to me. Far better to acknowledge and share in the obvious Iraqi joy at democracy, and leave the attacks on repub policy until later. Support of "freedom and democracy" shouldn't be allowed to be seen as a partisan issue. Otherwise, I'm afraid many people will begin to associate all the other moronic Bush policies with "freedom-loving." Certainly Fox News will help them along that shining path...

Well, maybe not. From andrewsullivan (sorry), an alternate view, and an example of Hersh raving.

From the Ahari article:

The absurd thing is: Ahari expects the other parties to be "losing their advantages" from some kind of democratic process of competition and compromise; I thought we had pretty much buried by now the idea that authoritarians are more efficient and militarily powerful than democracies.

From the Ecobar article:

(The sentence right before the Ragusa quote) 1) The 200,000 strong figure refered to the population that gave tacit support to the insurgents, not the fighters themselves; and 2) if a group consisting of 200,000 people can take over the mechanisms of gov't, that's not called "resistance;" it's called a "coup."

 

Maybe this story is the surest sign of success in Iraq.

Even our children's toys aren't safe.

 

Bion: Sorry, I read the andrewsullivan piece--if that's who it is; he apparently publishes under a pen name--and it seemed to me to be just a piece of hack journalism, a pure and simple hatchet job on Hersh. A few examples:

Hersh says neo-conservatives are in charge. If you dispute this, I'll be glad to answer.

Hersh calls people in the White House "ideologues". What do you say they are? Bush openly claims that God tells him what to do.

Hersh calls Ashcroft "demented". Have you seen Ashcroft singing his original composition, "Let the eagle soar, Like it's never soared before..." Watch it.

Hersh compared Abu Ghraib with "Nazi Germany". Of course it wasn't a death camp, although people died. Perhaps he was thinking of the other Nazi concentration camps, where people only died from neglect and over-enthusiastic questioning. There is much discussion of this on these boards.

"...the Abu Ghraib scandal--like the Mai Lai massacre [Hersh was an early poster on this topic]--was uncovered first not by Hersh but by Army investigations..." Wrong on both counts. Mai Lai was uncovered when a soldier who was present sent the photographs he'd taken to the Cleveland Plain Dealer , an Ohio newspaper. Abu Ghraib was uncovered when soldiers who were present sent photographs they had taken home to their families. In both cases the resulting publicity forced the army to investigate. Hersh presumably investigated because he thought it was the right thing to do.

I also looked at the other website. Hersh certainly rambles--it's a speech, and appears to be, in large part, extemporaneous--but there wasn't anything I'd call raving. His writing is much more focussed.

[ February 03, 2005, 07:08: Message edited by: Cernak ]

 

Sullivan's a claqueur, like a moth the warm light he enjoys being close to the elite circles of power because their influence and power give him a degree of importance as an 'insider'.

Andrew Sullivan is a pompous idiot who marches to a music someone else has composed and that someone else plays. Pentagon and his neocon buddies are angry about Hersh?

"Your wish, Sire!" and he immediately produces a denouncing writ on Hersh, pretty much fact free, but then, his audience is supposed to be composed of believers, who, like their president, aren't really fact checkers (the facts are from biased liberal sources anyway, and so thorougly compromised ).

 

Well, I certainly won't defend Andrew Sullivan, who I very often disagree with (and who's not a pen name; the guy who wrote the LA Times article, Max Boot, is a separate person, the LA Times' token neocon, and I won't defend him either). But in terms of being a "claqueur" (what a great word, should use it more often), I wouldn't see this as an exclusive property of the right or the left in political circles.

Yeah, I saw the "let the eagle soar" moment in F9/11. I absolutely agree that Ashcroft was a disgrace to the office, and I am also of the opinion that many in the fundamentalist Christian camp could be described as "demented" "ideologues," starting with anyone who takes the Left Behind series seriously.

I'm glad that there are people like Hersh around; I simply think that he is also a bit of an ideologue, as the rambling speech demonstrates. This isn't to say that the speech isn't full of valid criticisms of US policy. But many of the statements are strange and contradictory. I won't go through it point by point, but some examples:

"Puppet" is anything but a neutral term; why not just say "Quisling" or "Vishy" gov't to make the Nazi metaphor complete. The question is: how else would you set up a transitional government during a military occupation, especially when the foreign military is charged with keeping peace? And which will it be: the US has too much presence in Iraq and is responsible for the chaos there, or the US has too little presence in Iraq, so is responsible for the chaos there?

Saddam-lite? Like he's busy gassing the population and torturing them? Oh yeah, he's allowing the US forces to go after the insurgency, it's exactly the same thing! And plus, he's declared himself dictator-for-life; no wait, there's a chance he might be booted out off office if the religious Shia wins enough votes, better get ready to switch gears to attack the US for letting an Iran-style theocracy take over. And as for the former-Baathist business: so which will it be: the US screwed up by disbanding the (Baathist) Iraqi army and brought chaos to the country; or the US screwed up by letting anyone who had anything to do with the Baathists do anything in the country...

That's why we're dropping all those bombs on the Kurdish north and on the Shiite parts of Iraq. No wait...

Really, that must be what every soldier thinks. Knowing a few of them, I know that's exactly what's going through their minds. Everyone getting excited about voting in Iraq: all a sham. Who cares whether ragheads vote?

Because something like this happened in Vietnam and was widely documented, it must have happened all the time, and in Iraq too! Quick let's look for the mass graves!

Yeah, let's get a dig in for the noble oppressed non-white minorities! Poor whites are always ripe targets, and aren't covered by PC bans. What does this have to do with the situation in Iraq?

Yeah, well, maybe those poor whites can be authentic after all. Boy, this is entirely representative of everything that happened in Vietnam, and in Iraq too! Let's round up all the Iraq soldier's mothers, and have them give press conferences about how the US army turned them all into murderers!

Great, it's true! One mother found some Abu Graib photos; therefore all returning Iraq soldiers must have committed vile abuses! And in all parts of Iraq against all kinds of Iraqi citizens regardless of who they were or what they were doing!

So what's it going to be: the US admin doesn't care about the troops equipment and doesn't give them enough protection, or the US admin gives them more protection than ever before, leading to a greater number of survivors?

Look, there's plenty of reasons to be pissed at the Bush administration for misleading the US and the world before the war, and bungling the war. They should be held to accountability. But the level of rhetoric here is a bit extreme, and doesn't seem to me to speak to "unbiased, impeccable journalistic standards."

I also think it's a severe misdiagnosis to call the present administration "fascist;" fascism and neoconservatism have very little to do with each other, whatever you think of either one. I could say more about that if you'd like...

OT: check out the new avatar!

 

Wow....I never considered Sullivan a "claqueur". I'm kinda surprised that you came to that conclusion. Actually not really surprised, but more amused. Damn Rags, I didn't realise that you knew so much about his positions.

Since he didn't support President Bush (by his own admission he voted for Kerry) in the election. He pubically denounced Ashcroft and Gonzales, and he's called for Rumsfeld's resignation. Hardly a claqueur. And, as an openly gay man he's very much opposed to the president's position on gay marrage. Talk about fact checking!