Liberating Iraq, Part II: The Right to Vote

[Chris Alger]

From today's NY Times:

"[L]ast week, L. Paul Bremer III, the head of the American military occupation in Iraq, unilaterally canceled what American officials here said would have been the first such election in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Overruling the local American military commander, Mr. Bremer decreed that conditions in Najaf were not appropriate for an election. Several days later, American marines stormed the offices of an obscure local political party here, arrested four members and jailed them for four days. The offense, the Americans said, was a violation of a new edict by Mr. Bremer that makes it illegal to incite violence against forces occupying Iraq. ... American officials have said it may take up to two years for an elected Iraqi government to take over the country"

The article points out that the expected winner of the cancelled election was a Shiite dissident who spent six years in Iraqi prison before fleeing the country and has pledged, in contrast to the Iranian system of theocratic veto, to democratize Iraq.

In other words, the US dictator of Iraq is actively suppressing democratic processes that produces "inappropriate" results and criminalizing those political parties that the US opposes. Presumably, the reason elections will be put off for up to two years instead of two months is that the US requires this time to hand-pick its own guy and destroy his political competitors. (Or perhaps there will two parties the US favors, the Iraqi People's Party and the People's Party of Iraq, one of which will pledge to first stimulate foreign investment and then privatize public resources and another that wishes to reverse the order).

The article also points out that 1,000 Iraqis demonstrated against the election cancellation, a act of real courage, in light of the Human Rights Watch findings of excessive force by US troops (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraqfalluja/) when they shot more than hundred demonstrators last April in Falluja, killing 20.

It is, of course, illegal in the US to criminalize a political party for mere "incitement" to violence (it requires a showing of imminence), but since Democracy = Tryanny, such technicalities are likely to be overlooked by the mainstream press (as it was overlooked by the writer of the Times article).

[nicky g]

Hi Chris,

Article on the state of the media under Bremer which you might find interesting.

Iraq: US military & free speech (http://www.indexonline.org/news/20030611_iraq.shtml)

Excerpt: "What kind of message did the US military send to the Iraqis when it seized "editorial control" of Mosul city's only TV station because of its "predominantly non-factual/unbalanced news coverage" - meaning the re-broadcasting of Qatari Arab satellite network al-Jazeera?

"We have every right as an occupying power to stop the broadcast of something that will incite violence," Major General David Petraeus told reporters after being alerted to the offending broadcasts. "Yes, what we are looking at is censorship but you can censor something that is intended to inflame passions."

According to a Wall Street Journal report, a US army major was relieved of her duties and removed from the base when she argued that the order contravened principles of free speech. After all, these are principles guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, which every US soldier must "solemnly swear" to "support and defend".

But these contradictions fly everywhere. Having invested $20 million dollars over three months in the rebuilding of Iraqi state TV & radio, renamed the Iraqi Media Network (IMN), the US officials in charge of the contract began balking at the new network's news output immediately it went on air.

Managers were told to drop the readings from the Koran, the 'vox-pop' man-in-the-street interviews (usually critical of the US invasion) and even to run their content past the wife of a US-friendly Iraqi Kurdish leader for a pre-broadcast check. The station rejected the demands and dug in their heels. "As journalists we will not submit to censorship," Dan North, a Canadian documentary maker training Iraqis at the station, told Reuters."

[Jimbo]

See what happens when you fight a war and lose? Them's the breaks boys! Better luck next time. Iran, are you listening?

[John Cole]

Jimbo,

You must use the words "fight," "war," and "lose" in ways with which I am unfamiliar.

John

[Jimbo]

Hi John,

I left my secret decoder ring at the Cracker Jacks store. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif Would you mind elaborating a bit more on your post?

[John Cole]

Jimbo,

You mean you lost your Ring?

If I walk past Mike Tyson, and he hits me square on the jaw, I crumple. I wouldn't expect anyone to say that if I decide to "fight" Mike Tyson then I'm bound to "lose." But, if it's framed in those terms, it would seem I've made a rather unwise decision.

John

[Cyrus]

"See what happens when you fight a war and lose? Them's the breaks boys!"

If the Iraqis instead of "fighting a war" had chosen to surrender, can you explain what would have turned out differently as to the post-invasion situation? We would have had the same chaotic situtation policed inadequately by Americal soldiers ignorant of customs, language or context and we would've had the same reluctance by Washington to hand over democracy to the natives.

[MMMMMM]

Saddam had 17(?!) chances to cooperate with U.N. Resolutions regarding proscribed weapons. Seems he made 17 unwise decisions and then managed to top it all off at the end.

Now, entirely hypothetically: if you had been ordered by a court to retract certain printed statements about Mr. Tyson, and not to make further statements about him, yet you persisted 17 times against the judges' rulings; and if you also had an agreement with him personally, in writing, which you also flouted;-); and then finally you walked past Iron Mike and stuck out your tongue and farted in his general direction, and he hit you in the jaw--well, I'd say he just might have a point;-)

[andyfox]

I think your summation is a perfect description of the Bush Doctrine: Them's the breaks boys, better luck next time.

Note that the administration has now told Iran it will not stand for them developing a nuclear weapon. We'll make the rules, boys, better luck next time.

When the blowback from all this hubris comes and makes 9-11 look like a girl scout picnic, what will our leaders tell us? Them's the breaks, boys, better luck next time?

[andyfox]

I agree with you 100%. Our invasion of Iraq made exactly the same sense as would Mike Tyson striking John Cole because John passed gas in his general direction. In fact, the logic of our foreign policy seems to have been concocted by Mr. Tyson. Thanks for the wonderful analogy.

[Jimbo]

Hi Andy,

Is this from the "Let's Retake the Whitehouse With Fear Tactics Liberal Handbook? "When the blowback from all this hubris comes and makes 9-11 look like a girl scout picnic, what will our leaders tell us? Them's the breaks, boys, better luck next time? "

All I can say is we had better shape up the world while we still have a strong President in office. Woe are we when another limpwrist arrives at our nations primary residence.

Andy please tell me you aren't implying that we brought 9-11 on ourselves. Surely you jest!

[John Cole]

Andy,

Just wait until I pass gas in your direction; you'll change your tune then. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

John

[andyfox]

We've had strong Presidents in office, with the exception of Carter and Ford, since the 1930s. Surely you're not sugesting that Ronald Reagan and George Regular Bush were limpwrists? The current Bush's foreign policy does not differ appreciably from that of Clinton's.

Yes, I'm suggesting our imperial foreign policy contributed to 9/11. From Chalmer Johnson's Blowback:

"'Blowback' is shorthand for saying that a nation reaps what it sows. The United States will be a prime recipient in the foreseeable future of all of the more expectable forms of blowback, particularly terrorist attacks against Americans in and out of the armed forced anywhere on earth, including within the United States. The fact of its imperial pretensions means that a crisis is inevitable. More imperialist projects simply mean more blowback."

Surely you're not suggesting that 9/11 took place in a vacuum? Remember when Bin Laden and Hussein were working with and for us?

[MMMMMM]

andy you are kind and great, but hopeless. Please just ignore the flouting of the Resolutions and the cease-fire agreement, and focus on what was really important.

[MMMMMM]

How about this alternate scenario instead, Cyrus: instead of fighting a war or surrendering, Iraq would simply choose to comply with the U.N. Resolutions and the Cease-fire Agreement, and provide at least a little bit of documentation as to what became of the WMD the world knew they had when the inspectors got the boot! But NOOO-OOO-OOoo-ooo-ooo.......that's too simple!: Saddam would rather fight than comply.

[MMMMMM]

Blowback matters, but strength and weakness matter more. The stronger we are and the weaker our enemies are, the les likely we are to be attacked, and the converse is also true. You also can't satisfy fanatics and you can't reason with die-hard terrorists, blowback or no.

You guys really don't get it. Your enemies hate you because of who you are, not because of some minor little factor like blowback. Islamic fundamentalists hates everyone else, and especially the West, because of who we are. Period. So blowback, schmoeback, don't let them get a nuke attack.

Some enemies are reasonable and some aren't. The USSR was an example of an enemy that was reasonable. Don't kid yourself into thinking similarly about radical Islamists.

[John Cole]

Keep in mind, Andy, that Reagan's response to terrorism--the bombing in Beirut--was full retreat. Is Jimbo suggesting, you think, that Reagan was weak on terrorism?

John

[Cyrus]

"We had better shape up the world while we still have a strong President in office."

Trying to "shape the world" has been the surest sign of imminent downfall of all empires, Jimbo. Read your Kennedy.

"Woe are we when another limp-wrist arrives at our nation's primary residence."

Actually, the body bag count of the Presidents after Nixon isn't too bad. Not too bad at all! Whether friendly or hostile body bags.

Ronald Reagan, as JC pointed out, managed 250+ Marines in one hit, a feat unsurpassed to date. Bill Clinton, even when limp-wristing from all those cigar moves, chalked up not a small number of kills when he bombed a Sudanese aspirin factory (!) and Belgrade, indiscriminately. Them's all good sluggers, sports fans.

"Please tell me you aren't implying that we brought 9-11 on ourselves. Surely you jest!"

Well, I don't know what you mean exactly by "brought it on ourselves". I don't believe that any American wanted such a thing as 9/11 to happen (aside from a few lunatic "world strategists", see above). But 9/11 is something that didn't happen to Europe, to China or to Russia. It was something that didn't happen against "a wave of pro-Americanism around the world" -- actually quite the opposite. (Surprised by anti-Americanism? Outsiders wil judge America by its international posture rather than its domestic conditions, for better or worse.) Of course 9/11 was a barbarous, colossally criminal act. But it was also an act that brought the war "home". For better or worse.