State of Denial Denied

[Siblesz]

The U.S. government finally admits that the elections will not fix everything in Iraq and that they will not make Iraq into the most stable country in the Middle East. :p

First they said the elections were gonna fix everything and that everything would be ready for the January 30 elections. But then we found out that election workers were being kidnapped and killed and that the election process was nowhere near finished. Then we found out that the majority of the Sunni population of Iraq will not partake in the election. And finally we found out that at least 1/3 of the country will not be able to even vote. I expect there to be a 30-40% voting turnout... or less.

So as an excuse, the government is now stating the following:

The Bush administration played down voter turnout yesterday in determining the election's legitimacy and urged Americans not to get bogged in a numbers game in judging the balloting, a reflection of the growing concern over how much the escalating insurgency and the problem of Sunni participation may affect the vote.

"I would . . . really encourage people not to focus on numbers, which in themselves don't have any meaning, but to look on the outcome and to look at the government that will be the product of these elections,"

Unbelievable. Yeah... and the U.S. was supposedely "liberating" Iraq. I will now predict what these guys will say when the last U.S. helicopter leaves from the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and a new radical totalitarian Shi'ite government is installed in power:

"I would . . . really encourage people not to focus on the chaos, which in itself doesn't have any meaning, but look on the outcome and to look at the government that will be the product of this mass exodus from Iraq."

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6819452/

[Marshal Qin]

Haha. Does it strike anybody else as somewhat strange that they tell us not to look at the democratic process but at the results?

US troops to leave Iraq this year
05:57 AEDT Thu Jan 13 2005


AP - US troops will begin leaving Iraq this year as the Iraqi army, national guard and police force take on a larger security role, says US Secretary of State Colin Powell.

"But I cannot give you a timeline when they will all be home," Powell told National Public Radio in an interview released by the State Department.

There are some 150,000 US troops in Iraq, many of them under fire, and casualties have been mounting.

Powell also ruled out any US move to postpone elections scheduled for January 30 in Iraq to choose an interim legislative assembly.

The interim government in Baghdad and the Iraqi election commission want to move ahead with the election and so do the people, Powell said in the interview.

"We cannot delay the election because there are terrorists and murderers and former regime elements who are trying to keep that election from happening, to delay it," he said.

Taking a pessimistic view, a senior Jordanian diplomat had questioned the validity of the elections that Iraq is due to hold at the end of the month if many Iraqis do not vote.

More than 40 per cent of Iraqis will be unable to participate in electing an interim assembly, said Karim Kawar, Jordan's ambassador to the United States, adding, "This raises questions about the authenticity of the elections."

The Arab diplomat said some of the Iraqis would be prevented from voting by threat of insurgents while others lack the will to vote.

"We are in a kind of bind," Kawar said during a discussion at the Nixon Centre.

"I am not as optimistic about the Iraqi election as I was about the Palestinian election."

Jordan, which borders Iraq and has had a long and profitable economic and strategic relationship with its much larger, oil-rich neighbour, has trained more than 35,000 Iraqi police in the past year, but refuses to be part of the US-led military coalition that is fighting insurgents.

Jordan also has given haven to more than 300,000 Iraqis.

"Iraqis are best situated to protect themselves," Kawar said of dealing with the insurgency. He said Jordan cannot afford a failure in Iraq. "A failure would bring instability to the whole region," the envoy said.

In Baghdad, meanwhile, Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said some areas of the country probably would be unsafe for voting. It was his first public acknowledgment that the interim government could not gain control of key areas controlled by insurgents.



İAAP 2005

and what's this?

It was his first public acknowledgment that the interim government could not gain control of key areas controlled by insurgents

I thought that the US was supposed to be in control and that everything would be handed over to the Iraqis. Does this mean that the US is NOT in control of 'key areas' and that the Iraqis will be left to try to take these 'key areas' back without a US presence?

Lessons not learned from the initial invasion and belief that they would be welcomed with open arms - no backup plan in case its suddenly discovered that not everybody likes what they have to say
from the initial article:

...At this late date, the United States also has no viable options or alternatives other than trying to go forward with the Jan. 30 election, analysts say.

[wilpuri]

If anyone ever thought that having elections would change anything, then they're either very optimistic or naive. How does it help having a government (half of which will be dead within 3 months of election is my guess) when people couldn't vote for it, is boycotted and basically lacks credibility. To have a working democratic process, you need commitment to that process, and you need security and stability, and I've seen any of those in Iraq so far. Come on, just take the easy way out. Make Allawi "Father of the Iraqi Nation", after he signs the oil contracts of course, have him kill a few thousand people and lock the rest away, start wearing a uniform, sunglasses and grow a moustache.

[username]

In psychoanalysis the reversed denial or double denial as Zizek calls it is called 'symbolic castration'. So the US of A perfectly fits the description of a symbolically castrated subject.

As for Allawi - his problem is that with the last helicopter leaving he will be a dead man walking. The true power in Iraq is Sistani - the Americans lost this war a year ago.

[MareNostrum]

Originally posted by wilpuri@Jan 13 2005, 01:54 AM
If anyone ever thought that having elections would change anything, then they're either very optimistic or naive. How does it help having a government (half of which will be dead within 3 months of election is my guess) when people couldn't vote for it, is boycotted and basically lacks credibility. To have a working democratic process, you need commitment to that process, and you need security and stability, and I've seen any of those in Iraq so far. Come on, just take the easy way out. Make Allawi "Father of the Iraqi Nation", after he signs the oil contracts of course, have him kill a few thousand people and lock the rest away, start wearing a uniform, sunglasses and grow a moustache.

hey....then he would just look like Saddam...

well I'll be damned :

"We cannot delay the election because there are terrorists and murderers and former regime elements who are trying to keep that election from happening, to delay it," he said.

.........sigh............

Sept 2004..

"We never want to tip off our hands about what we want to do," he said. "It's clear, however, that, through a combination of political and military action, we will do whatever is necessary to bring areas of Iraq under the control of the Iraqi government ... by the January elections. "

Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday the United States would recognize the election of a Shiite Muslim government in Iraq provided the voting is free, fair and open.

So some areas are still not under control.... the election wont be fair...nor free...
but still we got people saying that this elections and the entire war are valid.. partially then..
which apparantly is acceptable as well..

"I would . . . really encourage people not to focus on numbers, which in themselves don't have any meaning, but to look on the outcome and to look at the government that will be the product of these elections

Dear Ahmed Ali Baba,

On 30th January, you can vote... here are the papers that are required for it..
Your vote is totally not important at all, because numbers dont have any meaning...but ofcourse the product of the elections ,which is totally not influenced ofcourse by the number of votes, ..is important...

So just come and vote..

Included you will find a free coupon for discounts on medical treatment in any hospital..., in case you get shot

The Azizi Insurance Company also has a great offer for you!!!* For 30 US dollars you can subscribe to their "I survived the election" insurance

If you manage to vote and return home than Azizi Insurance Company will reward you with 60 US Dollars.. THAT'S 30 DOLLARS PROFIT!!!...* So why wait ..fill out the form now and benefit from this once in a lifetime oppurtunity...

With Kind Regards,

Ahmed Bibo...from the Iraqui Election comittee

ah damn he just got shot..

With Kind Regards,

Hassan Mutalib......from the Iraqui Election comittee

Phase I Iraq War:
going in because of Iraq's WMD capabilities

Phase II Iraq War:
after having not found any WMD, to claim that you entered Iraq to liberate it from a cruel dictator..that was your first aim anyway.."

Phase III Iraq War:
encountering "pockets" of resistance but still aiming to have a valid election

Phase IV Iraq War:
which appears to be impossible... but still go on even though violence is increasing

Phase V Iraq War:
USA having trouble to control rebellions and to keep control

Phase VI Iraq War:
US forces leaving Iraq, because .."we did not find what we were looking for..it appears that there are no WMD after all and that was our aim in the first place.."

[JANOSIK007]

30-40 percent! Compared to my home countries 20% ('the democratic republic of' Slovakia) it sounds a hell of a lot more democratic. 40 isn't bad at all considering this US's (the democracy of the world) just slightly over 50.

Hell, I propose that we should recall this election and simply instal Nader as our dictator. That would be more democratic than the last election.

[Spook153]

One of the things that I like least about the US Administration's attitude to these elections is the way that they are happy to take risks with the lives of ordinary Iraqis in order to get political capital from having the elections as scheduled. For example take this statement found on Reuters.

Officials believe the election will be legitimate even if not everyone votes. A senior Bush administration official said "there will be some people who won't vote, but many people will." Those who do not vote for whatever reason "should not diminish the patriotism of those who do vote," the official said.

Note the "for whatever reason" and consider that the Administration has admitted that 4 provinces can be considered unsafe. I don't think that they mentioned that these provinces contain 25% of the population.

Thomas Jefferson famously remarked that

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

GWB seems to have reinterpreted this and, having seen off the tyrant, now plans to water his tree with the blood of Iraqi patriots. Not quite what Thomas had in mind, I suspect.

[Siblesz]

30-40 percent! Compared to my home countries 20% ('the democratic republic of' Slovakia) it sounds a hell of a lot more democratic. 40 isn't bad at all considering this US's (the democracy of the world) just slightly over 50.

Ummm.... your country doesn't vote because of general apathy towards your elections.

The population of Iraq will not vote because it will be too unsafe for people to vote.

There's a big difference. There's no apathy involved in the Iraq elections, there's just a state of insecurity and danger.

[aves]

State of Denial... isn't that Egypt? :devil :devil ... :blush

Seriously though, the Bush Administration has no clue how the people of the Middle East think or work. They have treated the Iraqis all along like South or Central Americans, not like an Arab nation. The Administration has been open and honest when it should have kept things close to its chest. Aggressive when it should have be careful, yet careful when a strong show of force and aggression was called for. Secular, when religious sensitivities should have existed. Sensitive when practical secular concerns should have been addressed.

What annoys me the most, is that I've called it everytime. I'm a Mid-Western USA, Government and History Instructor (emphasis in the Ancient Middle east and political science) who spend his summers doing digs and running camps for Israeli and Palestinian students in the Arab world. I'm not some high paid, vastly educated, president. With intelligence operatives, global connections, a military network, political think-tanks, and other specialized resources. Yet with the simple practical experiance I've had with Arab governments and societies I've turned to my wife after every new policy change and told her what would happen next and why it would fail... and more or less been right (actually I never thought they would go ahead with the elections, but other than that I've done very well).

What does this say about Bush (who I voted for the first time)? That the information and experiance needed to properly handle Iraq is out there... very easy to come by, and pretty simple to understand. But that this Administration with all its resources can't find its way due to mis-guided (and admirable) idealism, some very poor guiding assumptions, and a repeated and deliberate refusal to listen to the experianced experts (namely Powell) that work for the Administration, who have called for UN participation, a slow and careful intial assualt, continued focus on Bin Laden, a hard line with trouble makers in Iraq, and a focus on religious leaders in Iraq instead of secular power brokers and former CIA assets (every one of these recommended to Bush by Colin Powell, every one of the ignored... wonder why he stepped down?).

I just hope that we don't end up trading a secular despot with limited military capabilities for an extremist religious regime that is highly motivated (and somewhat justified) to attack American assets around the world. If I wasn't American, I'd be saying that we got what we deserved... instead I'm just hoping that someone in this Administration has the guts to get this thing turned around before is passes the point of no return. And I hope and pray that I'm not kidding myself when I think that it hasn't passed that point already.

[JANOSIK007]

There isn't as much difference as you might think.

That unwillingness to vote stems from people's distrust in their leadership and their own self-perceived powerlessness. You are downplaying the seriousness that apathy carries. Lack of choices and beat-down attitude is as serious a risk for democracy as the use of force to prevent democracy. In either way, process fails and people are left generally more bitter about their situation. To think that their attitude is utterly independent of the circumstances is not right.