Iraqi Letters

I am a recent convert to the anti-this election camp.

My previous theory was that this election is good for one thing only. After the election, the winner has a legal basis to tell the Americans to leave now, and if that happens, it is pretty hard for the Americans to stay.

After the Americans are clearly leaving, at that point new elections can be held. I was toying with the idea that anyone who wants to run can register and be given a number, and everyone in the country can place one vote for the person they respect the most as a political leader, and the 300 Iraqis who receive the most votes can form a forum of respected Iraqis.

I expect that these people would have the moral authority, the reasonableness and the intelligence to come up with a solution that makes everyone happy enough that nobody still wants to fight.

That forum could then debate and negotiate a constitution and present their result to this elected government for ratification.

Unbelievably in this election, Chalabi is on one slate, Allawi is on the other, and they both will probably make it into the next government. From what I understand, they surely are not among the 300 most respected Iraqis.

My previous theory depended on this election producing a leadership that reflected the views of the Iraqi people - which is to say depended on this election being democratic - and it failed because this election was designed to be anti-democratic.

Stalin held elections. The Soviets held elections in occupied Afghanistan that reportedly were fairer than the ones the Americans held.

Anyway, the 80% of Iraqis who considered the Americans an occupying force during the good old days in June will not get a representative government.

That's American Middle East democracy promotion for you.

If instead of drawing boundaries at Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish, we were to discuss the North, Central Region and South of Iraq, and say that the Central Region is the most active in the insurgency with the North and South less so, it seems the important thing for reaching an independent Iraq is to get the Southern and Northerners to join the insurgency.

Sistani is really turning into a mystery to me. If he wanted his people to be part of a government that was dominated by the Americans, he's could have accomplished this during the Interim Government. What's this voting for? In his mind the elections change something. What?

I thought what it changed was that the IG didn't have a legal basis to get the Americans out immediately and this elected government does. Maybe it's just that he'll have more say than he would have had before.

I don't know. I'm made to understand that the people in the Southern region have a lot of respect for him. We'll see.

Against my best judgement, I'll waste a few words about the "security vacuum" that would come if the Americans leave.

The Americans primarily protecting their own bases, themselves and the materials that they need to sustain their presence.

Americans soldiers, I'm reading, are being attacked 75 or so times per day and while more civilians are dying, there certainly are not 75 attacks on civilians per day.

From the point of view of an insurgent, an Iraqi joining a police force that takes orders from the Americans is a legitimate target, and easier to reach because far fewer resources are devoted to their security.

The Americans are defending themselves from insurgents, not combating criminals, so their leaving would have no negative impact on that aspect of security.

The only security situation that would deteriorate if the Americans leave is the security of the American troops.

If there were, just for arguments sake, elements of the insurgency who want to restore Hussein to power, the reason they have access to people willing to fight with them is because right now they are fighting the Americans. When the Americans leave, regardless of their secret agendas, they will no longer have troops.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

The previous comment was left by Mr. Democracy.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Refer my last post in the previous Blog. I’ve tried to keep up, but it’s still unclear to me exactly what people will be voting for. Voting for a particular "ticket" doesn’t seem to mean that the leader of that ticket, or the first name on that List, necessarily becomes President even if it wins a majority of votes. The Assembly decides that, and it seems designed to provide for a lot of horse-trading and wheeling and dealing before anything gets done. And as I’ve said it’s not clear anyway who is in charge ultimately, the President or the Prime Minister? Thirty percent of the (anonymous) candidates have to be women, right, but does the resulting assembly have to be somehow jiggled so that 30% of elected members are women? Etc etc. Could a low turnout just be to some extent a massive collective "duh?"
Seems to me Abu was so right in his preference for a locally-based rather than proportional system: surely people in his district would have been much happier voting for Sheikh Abu, father of Dahbi, who they knew and respected, rather than for this mysterious system. And the religious and ethnic distribution of candidates, if that mattered, would probably have come out much the same.
Anyway, it’s probably beside the point, because as far as I can make out from the comments of US bloggers, the important thing is the mystical act of voting, not the actual result. (And some news items seem to suggest the same attitude on the part of many Iraqis.) The vote that matters will be the next one, after an Iraqi-devised Constitution has been devised.
If the US army can hold out that long!
Circular
p.s. Are you going to vote, Abu? Go on, you can tell us - none of us are terrorists.
Well I don’t know about Charles. He’s a bit of a terror.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Mr. Democracy,

You might as well start seriously thinking about changing your name to Mr. Oblivion… considering how things are going!!

Circular,

Have you taken that advice about changing to a circular bed seriously? What’s this “Sheikh Abu, father of Dahbi” business? Who’s Dahbi? A NZ celebrity? ? Can please you go back to your rectangular one?

Regarding my own voting… well, it seems we’re back to difficult questions!! I thought Charles was keeping you a bit busy!

Seriously though, I thought my position was clear by now. I have always maintained that if a true, representative democracy was conducted in Iraq, chances are I would not like the results! That is not the issue. All I want is anybody thepeople would think is/are legitimate. If it is a democracy, then they can kick him/them out in a few years’ time. I can live happily with that as long as the rules of the game remain democratic. Is that fair? Besides, I am not really representative of the majority of Iraqis!! All I want is a fair democratic game and a level playing field!!

Coming back to my own personal voting, I have a few simple rules: I will not vote for any slate that has any candidate with innocent blood on his hands; is supported by a foreign power; or is a foreign national.

I have another set of hurdles actually. After those are satisfied, then I can examine political, economic or religious stance!!

I hope that answers your question :)

President Bush and others may regard the issue of voting or not voting as a measure of courage. They are of course entitled to their opinions. Iraqis have demonstrated a great deal of courage through the ordeal of the past two years (and the ordeals before). They have to have a great deal of courage to go through an average, ordinary day. They don’t need to prove that. They do it every single day!


Abu Hadi,

Thank you for the info and for that list. The latest news from the BBC ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4207121.stm) based on info from the High Electoral Commission puts the figure of registered voters as 255,611 out of a total of 1,593,000, which gives a ratio around 15%.

Besides, Iraqi expatriates are on average more educated and more politically informed than the average voter back home!

Does that make us even?

Tahiyati wa tamaneyati
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Hello Abu Khaleel,
I really hope some of the Sunni Arabs do try to vote for their group even for Al-Yawer. Just to stick their foot in the door so to speak. Not to vote is to back the cannibals. But really the only choice is 324. They are secular, oppose Bush's intervention, are 100% Iraqi but are anti-thug. The perfect irony of their victory would give Bush's neocons a well deserved black eye. Which every Iraqi alive dearly would like to do!
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Go, Bruno!
Circular to Abu
The "Abu Dahbi" (spelling?) was a reference to the Gulf state, plus an expression of my bafflement at the whole "Abu" business. Very weak joke. If I have no sons, can I be Abu Jennifer?
Regarding the expatriate Iraqis: I am reminded of a time here some years ago, when concern was expressed at the number of Kiwis emigrating to Australia. Our then PM, famously grumpy, remarked that the effect would be to raise the average IQ of both countries: i.e. that only very stupid Kiwis would be silly enough to leave our little paradise, but that even so they would raise the intelligence level of Australia. Fortunately the Aussies didn’t bother to invade and liberate us in retaliation.
One and a half million expatriates is a hell of a lot of Iraqis - at least five percent of the population? With the open borders since invasion, wouldn’t many of them be more recent émigrés fleeing American-style "liberation?" Does this exodus, presumably of the "brightest and the best," and the wealthiest, have serious significance for Iraq?
(Are they really the brightest and the best? After all, Allawi and Chalabi were amongst them. Even the poorest beggar in the meanest village in India must be able to see how totally sleazy and corrupt these guys are. It is a matter of genuine mystification to me that people like Charles can remain so happily oblivious to this.)
It would be fascinating to know to what extent you are a lone voice "crying in the wilderness" and to what extent you are out in the cafes slurping appalling coffee and exchanging gossip with yer mates. It seems to me that one possible result of these elections, not because of election day chaos but because of all the dangers of confusion and corruption, and lack of visible progress, afterwards, might be to actually turn a lot of Iraqis off "democracy."
Could the whole thing actually turn out to be counter-productive? What’s the word on the streets?
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Juan Cole, 28/01/05:

"AFP discusses the jockeying that is already going on for the post of prime minister. Predicting who will be chosen is very difficult. The parliament will elect a president and two vice presidents, who will form a presidential council. It will then appoint a prime minister. So parliament cannot dictate who the prime minister will be, and it needn't be the leader of the party that forms the government. We can't know what the calculation will be, of the presidential council."

See! I'm not stupid! I can think! I can read!
Oh, joy!
Circular
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Abu Hadi,

I really must thank you again for that list. So far, I have been sifting through the more serious contenders (may God help those several million Iraqis who can’t read or write!!) but last night I spent a disproportionate amount of time going through those lists. I had a few good laughs.

A few, had “undisclosed” candidates. They are out of course. These elections have already been called “The first elections in history with secret candidates”.

Slate 146 so far has the most interesting names. It is headed by someone called Nehro. The second is his brother, called Ghandi. Their sister, called Malamis (Touches!) comes 4th on the list. The fifth is a cousin of theirs with the unoriginal name of Ali. The third is a lady called Thawra (Revolution!). A sister-in-law?. The seventh is another cousin called “Qulundur”. I have no idea what language that comes from. Now, you can’t beat that can you? It had to go on my short list. I simply adore old Ghandi and I have a great deal of respect for Nehro.

May be worth a deeper look; one may find Hari Krishna or Shami Kabur or even chicken curry there. Wonder what their political agenda is. I hope it doesn’t have any ant-Pakistani elements in it!

It really is a blessing to find something so amusing in the midst of so much gloom and depression.

Shukran Jazeelan
__________________

Charles,

I assure you that there is no consensus here that you should not participate. On the contrary; you are welcome to post.

As I see it, you have turned this comments corner into a microcosm of the current global situation:

Vibrant, fresh “red”-blooded American taking on dissident America and much of the rest of the world (Brazil, South Africa, New Zealand, Italy, and Iraq – I don’t know where Mr. Democracy comes from)… all at once!

You think that they are all wrong. They think that you are all wrong. But don’t worry, you have Might on your side. There is only one problem: The rest of the world seems willing to fight back! You even seem to have “vitalized” some of the “old timers” here.

You are welcome to post. Just try to reduce the “impute” and the number of quotes. And no foul language please (I had to delete one of your comments on the last post).
_________________

Circular,
The name is Abu Dhabi. It isn’t unusual for one to be called by one’s daughter’s name. Quite a few friends actually call me using mine, because she is older. It is less formal and indicates some familiarity... and sometimes fondness. (and yes, we are a crazy lot! I never claimed otherwise).

There may be a problem though in your case. We call a genie a “jinny”. And when someone has a jinny around here, it indicates a fanatical obsession with something!

By the way, I relished your PM’s remark regarding the IQ. I couldn’t say the same about Iraqis going abroad. I am inclined to think that they reduced the IQ in one place and increased it in another. You choose!
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Bruno, Abu Jennifer,

I am gratified that some of the merits of the grass-roots democracy for Iraq are now evident to some people at least.

The plan was actually implemented in the chaos of May of last year with the help of some friends in 3 different small towns (not in the way I intended, but by local consensus nevertheless). The results were truly impressive. One town took less than 3 days to get organized, and remained so for over a year. May be worth a post sometime.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Charles, if I may butt in:
your response to Abu Hadi seems to me to display the same underlying assumption that I tried to elicit when I asked you what right your soldiers had to set up checkpoints in someone else’s country, on someone else’s roads. As far as I can see, although you have tried to bestow upon yourselves some sort moral right by claiming your primary war aim was to unseat a dictator, the plain fact is that the only legal right you have to be doing anything in Iraq is the good old-fashioned right of conquest. Same as Hitler had in Poland and France.
The Polish and French terrorists (that’s what the Germans called them) fought back with any means at their disposal. How come its OK for them, but not for the Iraqis?
Colin Powell warned Bush, before the war: You break it, you own it. In other words, the conqueror becomes responsible for what happens in the conquered country. Complaining about not having enough troops to do the job is just saying that you didn’t know what you were getting into, and haven’t reacted properly to the responsibility you have taken on.
"The US can help with security - but its up to the Iraqi police and soldiers, and the citizens themselves ..."
That’s like the white knight riding up to rescue the damsel from the fire-breathing dragon, and finding the dragon’s breath is a bit too hot for him: so he hand’s the damsel a rusty old sword and says, "Here, rescue yourself."
Powell, State Department and Garner had a perfectly good plan to involve Iraquis immediately in stabilisation and reconstruction. Cheney binned it, Rumsfeld and Bremer took over, and proceeded to foul up everything they possibly could. Which is why you are where you are today.
Aaaah - Choooooo !
Circular
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Charles speaking:
Saddam could have come clean in '91 as required, or anytime thereafter, and sanctions would have been lifted. Not the gesture of coming clean, but realing turning over a new leaf that was proactive and forthcoming. Sanctions would have been lifted.


Is this a deliberate lie, or is Charles just misinformed? You be the judge.

# "My Government believes that it will in fact prove impossible for Iraq to rejoin the community of civilized nations while Saddam Hussein remains in power."
- David Hannay, the UK's permanent representative to UN, 3 April 1991, after voting for Security Council Resolution 687, to keep sanctions on Iraq. Full text here, p.37.
http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/casi/info/undocs/sc910403.pdf

# "Do I think the answer is now for Saddam Hussein to be kicked out? Absolutely because there will not be - may I finish, please? - there will not be normalized relations with the United States, and I think this is true for most coalition partners, until Saddam Hussein is out of there. And we will continue the economic sanctions."
- President George H. Bush, 16 April 1991. White House Briefing. Full text here.
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/bushlifting.html

# "Saddam is discredited and cannot be redeemed. His leadership will never be accepted by the world community and, therefore, Iraqis will pay the price while he remains in power. All possible sanctions will be maintained until he is gone. Any easing of sanctions will be considered only when there is a new government."
- Robert M. Gates, Deputy National Security Adviser, on 7 May 1991. Quoted in "U.S. Sanctions Threat Takes U.N. by Surprise", Los Angeles Times (9 May 1991), emphasis added. The full text of the article is here.
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/gateslifting.html

# "President Bush said today that the United States would oppose the lifting of the worldwide ban against trading with Iraq until President Saddam Hussein is forced out of power in Baghdad".
- "Bush Links End Of Trading Ban To Hussein Exit", The New York Times, 21 May 1991.

# "We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted. Our view, which is unshakable, is that Iraq must prove its peaceful intentions. It can only do that by complying with all of the Security Council resolutions to which it is subjected.

Is it possible to conceive of such a government under Saddam Hussein? When I was a professor, I taught that you have to consider all possibilities. As Secretary of State, I have to deal in the realm of reality and probability. And the evidence is overwhelming that Saddam Hussein's intentions will never be peaceful."
- Madeleine Albright, US Secretary of State, 26 March 1997. This statement was made in her first major foreign policy address as Secretary of State, at Georgetown University, USA. The official text is here.
http://secretary.state.gov/www/statements/970326.html

Mr. Democracy
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Abu Hadi
I gather that you are a resident of the UK, apparently for some years. Could you answer a question for me?
Abu Kahleel sees no difference between the US and the UK, but you and I know that, deep down, the Brits are awfully nice really.
I am largely ignorant of UK politics. So I have never understood why Blair has not faced a serious back bench revolt over Iraq. I mean, a lot of the Labour Party are still old Labour, the woolly anorak brigade, aren’t they? How can they tolerate endless British involvement in a failed Imperial misadventure?
I have speculated before on this Blog that Bush’s exit strategy would be to hold on until after the elections, then declare mission re-accomplished, democracy established, and quit. But it appears this is not to be, the US will "... pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship" to maintain its enduring bases.
But surely the last thing Britain wants is enduring overseas bases - it’s only just got rid of them all? And surely Blair as a modern sophisticated European politician must be finding Bush’s increasingly loony fundamentalism very embarrassing?
My question: is there any likelihood that Blair will use the elections to provide the UK with an exit strategy? You know, there you are George, done our bit, South’s all pacified, had a good election, got to start taking our boys home now, got my own elections coming up?
Or is that hoping for too much?
Circular
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Circular,

Regarding the question of Britain, I have actually tried to avoid the issue. I spent a number of years in Britain and I agree with you. I still retain warm feelings for the country and its people.

My post (Tarnishing good names) was written partly out of anger for old Britain.

I also agree with you that, on the ground, the Brits did a better job in the south of Iraq.

But my feeling for a while has been that HM’s Government, whether Tory or Labour, will do the US administration’s bidding. Yes, you can hear some grumbling and complaints here and there, but in the final stand, that will be the case.

As I see it, the country is in the process of doing some soul searching. It is yet to determine on which side of the Atlantic it belongs to in the coming century. As the shores drift apart in the current mood in America, it is becoming increasingly difficult to put a foot on each shore. We can only wait.

As we say over here “Sadeequka men sadaqaka la men saddaqak”, which roughly means: “your friend is one who is truthful to you not one who agrees with you”.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Abu Hadi:

The following is from a recent Washington Post article:

"At a news conference Wednesday, Brig. Gen. Thomas Bostick of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers explained that some of the power shortfalls were caused by the Iraq government's decision to shut down some units for maintenance. The units had been neglected by Saddam's government. Scheduled maintenance reduced Iraq's power capacity from 6,000 megawatts to 5,000, he said. But another 1,400 megawatts were lost to "unscheduled maintenance," or breakdowns, and 600 more to insurgent attacks." The link is: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/01-05/01-16-05/a02wn387.htm .

Also, while politically it may seem foolish to shut down capacity prior to elections, it might have been worse to defer the scheduled maintenance and have even more of the system go down during the peak demand summer season. As there is currently 1,400 MW of capacity down due to breakdowns, this seems to be a significant risk. The real tragedy is that electricity capacity had reached 6,000 MW before maintenance, breakdowns and insurgent attacks reduced it to roughly 3,000 MW which is below the pre-war capacity of about 4,000 MW.

By the way, the amount of money required to rebuild the system to meet increased projected demand has been projected to be as high as 10 Billion dollars over five years. See the link http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/energy/iraq/a46n17a01.htm .

As to the amount of money spent by the CPA on electricity, it is my understanding that many large scale projects had been bid under the CPA, but that the money had not been spent due to security issues. The linked Chicago Tribune article asserts that current U.S. investment in the Iraqi Electricity system has reached more than $500 million, which obviously, is significantly higher than the 30 million dollar figure you cited. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0501140235jan14,1,6840974.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed .

Of course, you recognize that causing electricity outages and preventing improvements of the electrical service is an important part of a classic insurgency strategy as they sap the populace of its trust that the government can provide necessary services or survive the challenge by the insurgents.

Mark-In-Chi-Town
 
_____________________________________________________________________