Article

2004-01-17 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2004-01-17 1:41:19 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The demand puts the United States in the awkward position of arguing against direct elections while saying its goal is a democratic Iraq.

The word "now" is missing from the above sentence. There is no infrastructure, no voter rolls, none of the legal codes needed to ensure an honest election. There is no census to determine who is, and who is not, an Iraqi citizen eligable to vote. So they go with the caucus system to start, get a constitution, and legal framework up and running, take a census, establish voter rolls, and THEN have direct elections. Why is this hard to see?

Posted by Ben 2004-1-17 4:25:18 AM|| 2004-1-17 4:25:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Considering that the Shites are the majority of the population I can see why Sistani wants direct elections.With direct elections Sistani can sieze control of all Iraq.
I still favor partition,or at best a loose confederation to handle national issues.

Posted by raptor 2004-1-17 8:23:05 AM|| 2004-1-17 8:23:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Have absolute separation of church and state in the constitution. Make it so that clerics can't run for elected posts.

And then let the Iraqis deal with the little details themselves. Partition? Loose confederation? Unitary state? Have it be their own choice.

The enemy is islamofascism -- or it should be. And thus the one thing that should be enforced is separation of church and state.

But we didn't get to see this in Afghanistan, and we are certainly not going to see it in Iraq.

Instead, we see Sharia already starting to replace civil law. Lookit here.

The battle of Iraq is being *lost*, and the Islamofascists are the emerging victors.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-1-17 10:10:33 AM|| 2004-1-17 10:10:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 The two most likely outcomes to premature elections are an Iraqi civil war or a Taliban type dictatorship.

Posted by Tresho 2004-1-17 10:12:44 AM|| 2004-1-17 10:12:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 This is where the rubber hits the road and we find out if Dubya really has the stomach for this business.

It all he cares about is getting reelected he'll cave to Sistani.

That neat little trick the IGC pulled with doing away with civil rights for women cannot be allowed to stand.

Posted by Hiryu 2004-1-17 10:17:47 AM|| 2004-1-17 10:17:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Aris,Hiryu.I read this the other day(Healingiraq).
If this isn't stomped on with both feet the whole war is for nothing.

Posted by raptor 2004-1-17 11:29:30 AM|| 2004-1-17 11:29:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 It's time to whack Sistani and Sadr. Do both in on the same day. Back it up with several tank batallions and every helicopter that will fly. Tell the Shiites that WE are not going to allow them to take control of Iraq, and make it a second Iran. If they don't cooperate, destroy their power structure, starting with the mosques where they hide the weapons and explosives.

Posted by Old Patriot 2004-1-17 11:30:30 AM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2004-1-17 11:30:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 The battle of Iran is won in that saddam is gone as is his power base. That the nation building process isn't going like cake is another matter. Sistani needs to be humored and lead along. (or whacked indeed) If his cronies want to march and steam and throw rocks, have at it. It's their tea party. But without muscle they are just a rabble blowing up roadside targets. If there was a direct election today and the majority won along tribal lines does any one think the losers would go meekly along.

Hiryu, I don't see how caving to Sistani would help GW at the poles. I think just the opposite.

Posted by Lucky 2004-1-17 12:27:26 PM|| 2004-1-17 12:27:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 I wonder how much MacArthur and Truman agonized over the decision to leave Emperor Hirohito in place. I'm sure, at the time, it was considered a risky proposition and many doubted that Japan could reform and develop into a peaceful liberal democracy without dumping the central symbol of reactionary nationalism. They also must have agonized about the decision not to outlaw the Communist Party and no-doubt many people worried that Japan would go red in the post war period when poverty, crime, hunger and malnutrition were rampant.

Of course the analogy is limited. But that's the dilemma - how much to compromise for pragmatism, how much to impose. The extremes of either direction result in failure. I don't envy Messrs. Bremer and Bush. They've gotta make the call. I pray that they have quality advice and info. I have confidence in their judgement.

By the way, just yesterday, the Japanese Communist Party, which is similar to its European counterparts with a small but public voice and a few seats in the Diet (parliament), announced that it was dropping its platform of calling for a "socialist revolution" and accepting the emperor system.

Iraq is a long-term project and every little set-back and drama is not a cause for panic.

Posted by Tokyo Taro 2004-1-17 9:26:51 PM|| 2004-1-17 9:26:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Good advice, TT. I seem to recall that we wrote the Japanese constitution. They turned out well. I'm beginning to wonder if we shouldn't "suggest" a constitution for the Iraqis, starting wtih a Bill of Rights.

Posted by Steve White 2004-1-17 9:57:21 PM|| 2004-1-17 9:57:21 PM|| Front Page Top

07:50 Jochen
01:48 Anti-aggressor
05:29 f-ing euro
02:24 SH
02:23 Anonymous
20:56 Jesus
18:24 Sn
17:50 Seppo Basher
16:37 Sven
15:55 Sophist
14:05 ar
14:01 ar
14:00 ar
12:28 Sven
12:27 Taffy
10:14 rt
09:18 Jochen
07:28 f-ing euro
07:23 Anonymous
06:46 f-ing euro
00:27 VRWconspiracy
23:45 curtis kreutzberg
23:41 SON OF TOLUI
23:34 SON OF TOLUI