Compliments of Shobak
1.The Story of the Ghost- William Pitt
2.Triumph and Tragedy- Robert Fisk
3.Jihad Has the Last Word- Le Figaro
4.Elections Are Not Democracy- Fareed
Zakaria
5.High Anxiety- Dahr Jamail
6.Some Just Voted for Food
7.Who voted, who didn't & why
The Story of the Ghost
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Monday 31 January 2005 "United States officials were surprised and
heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential
election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.
According to reports from Saigon, 83 percent of the 5.85 million registered
voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals
threatened by the Vietcong. A successful election has long been seen as the
keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of
constitutional processes in South Vietnam."
- Peter Grose, in a page 2 New York Times article titled, 'U.S. Encouraged
by Vietnam Vote,' September 4, 1967.
In all the media hoopla over Sunday's "election" in Iraq, a few details
got missed.
The powerful and influential Association of Muslim Scholars is not
buying the idea that there was some great democratic breakthrough with this
vote. AMS spokesman Muhammad al-Kubaysi responded to the election by saying,
"The elections are not a solution to the Iraqi problem, because this problem
is not an internal dispute to be resolved through accords and elections. It
lies in the presence of a foreign power that occupies this country and
refuses even the mere scheduling of the withdrawal of its forces from Iraq."
"We have consistently argued," continued al-Kubaysi, "that elections can
only occur in a democracy that enjoys sovereignty. Our sovereignty is
incomplete. Our sovereignty is usurped by foreign forces that have occupied
our land and hurt our dignity. These elections... are a means of
establishing the foreign forces in Iraq and keeping Iraq under the yoke of
occupation. They should have been postponed."
Al-Kubaysi likewise raised grave concerns about low turnout in Sunni
areas such as Baghdad, Baquba and Samarra, and stated flatly that the deep
secrecy that shrouded the candidates themselves invalidated the process.
"The voter goes to the polling stations not knowing who he is voting for in
the first place," he said. "There are more than 7,700 candidates, and I
challenge any Iraqi voter to name more than half a dozen. Their names have
not been announced but have been kept secret. Elections should never have
been held under these present circumstances."
The American media is painting these newly-minted Iraqi voters as flush
with the thrill of casting a ballot. In truth, however, some other more
pressing motivations lay behind their rush to the polling places. Dahr
Jamail, writing for Inter Press Service, reported that "Many Iraqis had
expressed fears before the election that their monthly food rations would be
cut if they did not vote. They said they had to sign voter registration
forms in order to pick up their food supplies. Just days before the
election, 52 year-old Amin Hajar, who owns an auto garage in central
Baghdad, had said, 'I'll vote because I can't afford to have my food ration
cut. If that happened, me and my family would starve to death.'"
'Will Vote For Food' is not a spectacular billboard for the export of
democracy.
"Where there was a large turnout," continued Jamail, "the motivation
behind the voting and the processes both appeared questionable. The Kurds up
north were voting for autonomy, if not independence. In the south and
elsewhere Shias were competing with Kurds for a bigger say in the 275-member
national assembly. In some places like Mosul the turnout was heavier than
expected. But many of the voters came from outside, and identity checks on
voters appeared lax. Others spoke of vote-buying bids. More than 30 Iraqis,
a U.S. soldier, and at least 10 British troops died Sunday. Hundreds of
Iraqis were also wounded in attacks across Baghdad, in Baquba 50km northeast
of the capital as well as in the northern cities Mosul and Kirkuk."
Perhaps the most glaring indication that this "election" did little to
settle the bloody reality in Iraq came three days before the ballots were
cast. In a letter to congress dated January 28, the neoconservative
think-tank/power broker known as The Project for the New American Century
(PNAC) essentially called for a draft without actually using the 'D' word.
Project Censored, the organization that tracks important yet wildly
under-reported stories, declared the existence, motivations and influence of
PNAC to be the #1 censored media story for 2002-2003. Most t r u t h o u t
readers are familiar with PNAC, but for those who missed this story, a quick
refresher is required.
The first vital fact about PNAC has to do with its membership roll call:
Dick Cheney, Vice President of the United States, former CEO of Halliburton;
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense; Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of
Defense; Elliot Abrams, National Security Council; John Bolton,
Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security; I. Lewis Libby,
Cheney's top National Security assistant. This list goes on.
These people didn't enjoy those fancy titles in 2000, when the PNAC
manifesto 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' was first published. Before 2000,
these men were just a bunch of power players who got shoved out of
government in 1993. In the time that passed between Clinton and those
hanging chads, these people got together in PNAC and laid out a blueprint.
'Rebuilding America's Defenses' was the ultimate result. 2000 became 2001,
and the PNAC boys suddenly had the fancy titles and a chance to swing some
weight.
'Rebuilding America's Defenses' became the roadmap for foreign policy
decisions made in the White House and the Pentagon; PNAC had the Vice
President's office in one building, and the Defense Secretary's office in
the other. Attacking Iraq was central to that roadmap from the beginning.
When former Counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke accused the Bush
administration of focusing on Iraq to the detriment of addressing legitimate
threats, he was essentially denouncing them for using the attacks of
September 11 as an excuse to execute the PNAC blueprint.
The goals codified in 'Rebuilding America's Defenses,' the manifesto,
can be boiled down to a few sentences: The invasion and occupation of Iraq,
for reasons that had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. The building of
several permanent military bases in Iraq, the purpose of which are to
telegraph force throughout the region. The takeover by Western petroleum
corporations of Iraq's nationalized oil industry. The ultimate
destabilization and overthrow of a variety of regimes in the Middle East,
friend and foe alike, by military or economic means, or both.
"Indeed," it is written on page 14 of 'Rebuilding America's Defenses,'
"the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in
Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the
immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence
in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
In the last three years, PNAC has gotten every single thing it placed on
its wish list back in 2000. This is why their letter to congress last week
is so disturbing. The letter reads in part: The United States military is
too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume. Those
responsibilities are real and important. They are not going away. The United
States will not and should not become less engaged in the world in the years
to come. But our national security, global peace and stability, and the
defense and promotion of freedom in the post-9/11 world require a larger
military force than we have today. The administration has unfortunately
resisted increasing our ground forces to the size needed to meet today's
(and tomorrow's) missions and challenges.
So we write to ask you and your colleagues in the legislative branch to take
the steps necessary to increase substantially the size of the active duty
Army and Marine Corps. While estimates vary about just how large an increase
is required, and Congress will make its own determination as to size and
structure, it is our judgment that we should aim for an increase in the
active duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each
year over the next several years.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution places the power and the duty to
raise and support the military forces of the United States in the hands of
the Congress. That is why we, the undersigned, a bipartisan group with
diverse policy views, have come together to call upon you to act. You will
be serving your country well if you insist on providing the military
manpower we need to meet America's obligations, and to help ensure success
in carrying out our foreign policy objectives in a dangerous, but also
hopeful, world.
Brush aside the patriotic language, and you have the ideological
architects of this disastrous Iraq invasion stating flatly that the American
military is being bled dry, and that the ranks must be replenished before
that military can be used to push into Iran, Syria and the other targeted
nations. The 'D' word is not in this letter, but it screams out from between
the lines. All the lip service paid to the Iraq elections by these people
does not contrast well with their cry for more warm bodies to feed into the
meat grinder.
Lyndon Johnson was excited about voter turnout in Vietnam in September
1967. Eight years, three Presidents and millions of dead people later, that
excitement proved to have been wretchedly illusory. There is no reason, no
reason whatsoever, to believe that the Iraq election we witnessed this
weekend will bring anything other than death and violence to the people of
that nation and our soldiers who move among them. History repeats itself
only when we are stupid enough to miss the lessons learned in past failures.
The wheel is coming around again.
Author's Note | The fascinating New York Times article on the Vietnam
election in 1967 was first located and published by patachon on the DailyKos
blog forum. =====Triumph and Tragedy for Iraq By Robert Fisk The Independent
U.K.
Monday 31 January 2005
Low level of Sunni participation tarnishes success of large poll turnout.
Baghdad - Even as the explosions thundered over Baghdad, they came in their
hundreds, and then in their thousands. Entire families, crippled old men
supported by their sons, children beside them, babies in the arms of their
mothers.
The Shi'ite Muslims of Baghdad yesterday walked quietly to polling stations,
to the Martyr Mohamed Bakr Hakim School in Jadriya, without talking, through
the car-less streets, the air pressure changing around them as mortars
rained down on the US and British embassy compounds and the first of the
day's suicide bombers immolated himself and his victims, most of them
Shi'ites, 3km away.
The Kurds voted, in their tens of thousands, but the Sunnis - 20% of Iraq's
population, whose insurgency was the principal reason for this election -
boycotted or were intimidated from the polling stations.
The turnout figure, estimated at perhaps 72% of Iraq's 15-million registered
voters, represented both victory and tragedy. For while the Shi'ites voted
in their millions with immense courage, the Sunni voice remained silent,
casting into semi-illegitimacy the National Assembly whose existence is
supposed to provide the US with a political excuse to extricate itself from
its little Vietnam in the Middle East.
And yes, there was the violence we all expected. There were nine suicide
bombers in Baghdad - the largest number ever to have killed themselves on a
single day anywhere in the Middle East.
An American mercenary and a US soldier were among the first to die when
mortars exploded across the American-appointed administration buildings in
central Baghdad. Then more than 20 voters were cut down. Before dusk came
news that a Royal Air Force C-130 Hercules transport aircraft had crashed en
route to the largely insurgent-held city of Balad. In all, almost 50 people
were killed across Iraq.
But it was the sight of those thousands of Shi'ites, the women mostly in
black hejab covering, the men in leather jackets or long robes, the children
toddling beside them, that took the breath away. If Osama bin Laden had
called these elections an apostasy, these people, who represent 60% of Iraq,
did not heed his threats.
They came to claim their rightful power in the land - that is why Ayatollah
Ali al- Sistani, the grand marja of the Shi'ites of Iraq, told them to vote
- and woe betide the Americans and British if they do not get it. For if
this election produces a parliamentary coalition which splits the Shi'ites
and turns their largest party into the opposition, then the Sunni insurgency
will become a national uprising.
"I came here," said a young man in the Jadriya polling station, "because our
grand marja told us that voting today was more important than prayer and
fasting."
An older man beamed with delight. "My name is Abdul-Rudha Abu Mohamed and I
am so happy today," he said. "They must elect a president from us and we
must be one with all Iraqis - and we must have justice."
Even the local election agent was close to tears. Taleb Ibrahim admitted
that he had participated in Saddam Hussein's one-man elections but that this
day marked the moment when the Shi'ites of Iraq, after refusing to take
revenge on their Ba'athist oppressors, would show their magnanimity.
Even if the Sunnis were boycotting the poll, he said, "there is an old
saying that if the father becomes angry, we will have no problems with his
sons. We will make sure that these sons - the Sunnis - have equal rights
with us."
Across Baghdad, it was the same story; entire families moved as one towards
the polling stations while the air rang with explosions. Just after voting
started, there were 30 detonations in the city in less than two minutes -
but still they came as if on a family day out.
Bombs are now heartbeats in Iraq, and we could hear the thump of explosions
even above the low-flying American Apache choppers. Yet along the empty
roads, neighbours stopped to talk and show each other the indelible ink on
their index fingers that officials used to ensure there were no double
votes.
It was both the safest and the most dangerous of days.
At one polling station, I asked the first of the young Iraqi soldiers who
were to check us - all wore black woollen face masks so that they could not
be identified - if he was frightened.
"It doesn't matter," he said.
"I am ready to die for this day. We have got to vote."
Seven hours later I talked to him again and he, too, had the indelible ink
on his finger. "It's like you can change your future or your faith," he
said.
"We only had military coups and revolutions before. We voted 'yes' or 'yes'.
Now we vote for ourselves."
It was easy to imbibe the false optimism of the Western television networks
and the nonsense about Iraq's "historic" day - for it will only have been
historic if it changes this country, and many fear that it will not.
No one I met yesterday believes the insurgency will end - many thought it
would grow more ferocious - and the Shi'ites in the polling stations said
with one voice that they were also voting to rid Iraq of the Americans, not
to legitimise their presence.
This is a message that the Americans and British will ignore at their peril.
On Baghdad's streets yesterday, the Americans deployed thousands of troops,
most of them trying to show some respect for the people, watching them
rather than threatening them with their rifles, which is how they usually
behave in the dangerous capital.
A certain Captain Buchanan from Arkansas even ventured a political thought.
"It's a pity the Sunnis aren't voting - it's their loss."
But of course it is also Iraq's loss and the Shi'ites' loss too - and
possibly America's loss. For without that vital minority component, who will
believe in the new parliament or the constitution it is supposed to produce
or the next government it is supposed to create?
I asked a Sunni Muslim security guard what he thought would be the future of
his country.
He had not voted - in many Sunni cities only a third of the polling stations
opened - but he had thought a lot about this question.
"You cannot give us 'democracy' just like this. This is one of your Western,
foreign dreams," he said. "Before, we had Saddam and he was a cruel man and
he treated us cruelly. But what will happen after this election is that you
will give us lots of little Saddams.
An American mercenary and a US soldier were among the first to die when
mortars exploded across the American-appointed administration buildings in
central Baghdad. Then more than 20 voters were cut down. Before dusk came
news that a Royal Air Force C-130 Hercules transport aircraft had crashed en
route to the largely insurgent-held city of Balad. In all, almost 50 people
were killed across Iraq.
But it was the sight of those thousands of Shi'ites, the women mostly
in black hejab covering, the men in leather jackets or long robes, the
children toddling beside them, that took the breath away. If Osama bin Laden
had called these elections an apostasy, these people, who represent 60% of
Iraq, did not heed his threats.
They came to claim their rightful power in the land - that is why
Ayatollah Ali al- Sistani, the grand marja of the Shi'ites of Iraq, told
them to vote - and woe betide the Americans and British if they do not get
it. For if this election produces a parliamentary coalition which splits the
Shi'ites and turns their largest party into the opposition, then the Sunni
insurgency will become a national uprising.
"I came here," said a young man in the Jadriya polling station,
"because our grand marja told us that voting today was more important than
prayer and fasting."
An older man beamed with delight. "My name is Abdul-Rudha Abu Mohamed
and I am so happy today," he said. "They must elect a president from us and
we must be one with all Iraqis - and we must have justice."
Even the local election agent was close to tears. Taleb Ibrahim
admitted that he had participated in Saddam Hussein's one-man elections but
that this day marked the moment when the Shi'ites of Iraq, after refusing to
take revenge on their Ba'athist oppressors, would show their magnanimity.
Even if the Sunnis were boycotting the poll, he said, "there is an old
saying that if the father becomes angry, we will have no problems with his
sons. We will make sure that these sons - the Sunnis - have equal rights
with us."
Across Baghdad, it was the same story; entire families moved as one
towards the polling stations while the air rang with explosions. Just after
voting started, there were 30 detonations in the city in less than two
minutes - but still they came as if on a family day out.
Bombs are now heartbeats in Iraq, and we could hear the thump of
explosions even above the low-flying American Apache choppers. Yet along the
empty roads, neighbours stopped to talk and show each other the indelible
ink on their index fingers that officials used to ensure there were no
double votes.
It was both the safest and the most dangerous of days.
At one polling station, I asked the first of the young Iraqi soldiers
who were to check us - all wore black woollen face masks so that they could
not be identified - if he was frightened.
"It doesn't matter," he said.
"I am ready to die for this day. We have got to vote."
Seven hours later I talked to him again and he, too, had the indelible
ink on his finger. "It's like you can change your future or your faith," he
said.
"We only had military coups and revolutions before. We voted 'yes' or
'yes'. Now we vote for ourselves."
It was easy to imbibe the false optimism of the Western television
networks and the nonsense about Iraq's "historic" day - for it will only
have been historic if it changes this country, and many fear that it will
not.
No one I met yesterday believes the insurgency will end - many thought
it would grow more ferocious - and the Shi'ites in the polling stations said
with one voice that they were also voting to rid Iraq of the Americans, not
to legitimise their presence.
This is a message that the Americans and British will ignore at their
peril.
On Baghdad's streets yesterday, the Americans deployed thousands of
troops, most of them trying to show some respect for the people, watching
them rather than threatening them with their rifles, which is how they
usually behave in the dangerous capital.
A certain Captain Buchanan from Arkansas even ventured a political
thought. "It's a pity the Sunnis aren't voting - it's their loss."
But of course it is also Iraq's loss and the Shi'ites' loss too - and
possibly America's loss. For without that vital minority component, who will
believe in the new parliament or the constitution it is supposed to produce
or the next government it is supposed to create?
I asked a Sunni Muslim security guard what he thought would be the
future of his country.
He had not voted - in many Sunni cities only a third of the polling
stations opened - but he had thought a lot about this question.
"You cannot give us 'democracy' just like this. This is one of your
Western, foreign dreams," he said. "Before, we had Saddam and he was a cruel
man and he treated us cruelly. But what will happen after this election is
that you will give us lots of little Saddams. ===== Jihad Has the Last Word
By Alain-Gérard Slama Le Figaro
Monday 31 January 2005 The perverse effects of America's policy in the
Middle East.
By attacking Iraq, George W. Bush and his team can boast of having made
the outcome of the democratic vote, and with it, of even the peace, depend
on the good will of the religious powers. In spite of the hopes that one
would like to base on the democratic dynamic in Iraq and Israel, this
perverse effect of a rash and foolish policy runs the risk of substantiating
itself in both cases. Of course, the worst is not certain in either of these
two situations. However, even if democracy ends up triumphing, it is to be
feared that it will be a democracy of a purely formal sort, dominated by
religious power. In fact, in this part of the world, only the clergy are
capable of controlling the passion of fanatics moved by a desire for
unlimited destruction.
Of course, Muslim fundamentalists didn't wait for the Iraq conflict to
bridle at the West: their hatred had been fed by the Middle East crisis. The
last straw was the 1991 Gulf War and the scandal of the presence of American
troops on Saudi Arabia's sacred soil, which led the Islamic terrorists to
radically modify their strategic ambitions. Since then, they have not ceased
to speculate on an American misstep that would turn several hundred isolated
militants into several tens of thousands of militants, that would create
within the civilian population the base necessary for the proclamation of
jihad to sow terror in the world. (1)
The Senate's 1998 unanimous vote in favor of the liberation of Iraq
preceded the September 11, 2001 provocation only by a short while. The
United States' declaration of war against Iraq that followed that attack was
a divine and unexpected surprise for bin Laden: blinded by his obsession to
equal his father, George Bush Junior piled into the trap head first.
In the Middle East, whatever the good intentions of Mahmoud Abbas and
Sharon, and whatever their democratic legitimacy, the head of the
Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Prime Minister are no less fragile on
account of them. They spy on one another; they watch one another out of the
corners of their eyes. The Palestinians voted for Abbas out of a desire to
return to normal life - which demands much from the Israelis. If the Sharon
government does not quickly restore freedom of movement, attacks will be
renewed. However, Sharon cannot loosen these controls without being accused
by his own extremists of encouraging terrorism. Mahmoud Abbas expects that,
and it's not by chance that he downplayed the future on the eve of his own
election by talking about demilitarization and not the end of the Intifada,
as well as by playing on the ambiguity of the word jihad, which may mean
violence as well as strength of soul.
For his part, the Israeli Prime Minister has taken on a great deal by
renouncing the colonization of the Gaza strip that he had once advocated. On
the other hand, he is watching Palestinian behavior in Gaza carefully and is
ready to put off any peace agreement indefinitely should terrorists use it
as a base to attack Israel. Yet Mahmoud Abbas cannot prevent suicide
attacks, which are as inaccessible to reason as to force. In this state of
affairs, given the deterioration of the Iraq situation, no American
mediation has the slightest chance of success. The best that one can hope
for is that "moderate" clerics, the only ones able to counter the terrorists
with texts from the Koran, be in control of the game.
On Iraqi soil, the situation is not substantially different. If the
strong electoral alliance and Shi'ite participation in the Sunday January 30
elections offer any hope, it reposes not on Prime Minister Allawi, protected
by the Americans, but on the wisdom of Ayatollah Sistani. The Shi'ites, the
Sunni, and the Kurds hate each other to no end: they've already suffered
enough in three wars and eleven years of embargo. It is unlikely that a
majority of them want to add civil war to all that. Arbitration is possible
from the Shi'ite side where there is a religious hierarchy. This is all the
more likely as Iraqi Shi'ites are proud of their national identity and
reject the establishment of a theocracy that would be subordinate to the
Iranian model.
In order for Sistani, the Shi'ites' natural leader, to be altogether in
charge, he'd have to face a Sunni negotiator with comparable prestige who
could pressure fundamentalist terrorists. Yet Sunnism has neither Church nor
hierarchy. Attacks increase with the complicity of Shi'ite extremists
equally anxious to bring the American occupier to bay at the dilemma of
"quagmire or quit." In the absence of a local Sunni authority with
sufficient authority, only a joint United States and Europe diplomatic
campaign would have a chance of eliciting mediation from Muslim countries.
The Libyan Khadafi dreams of such an opportunity and it is imaginable that
in an emergency, an international Islamic conference might succeed in drying
up the source of terrorism by pressuring religious fanatics in the very name
of their own religion.
Certainly, there is nothing very thrilling about this perspective. It
hardly goes in the direction of that dream of a democratic, secular, and
liberal "end of history" evoked in the famous 1989 article by Francis
Fukuyama. Fortunately, history is written in curved lines. A mediation of
religious powers presupposes great diplomatic maneuvers in which Europe and,
even more specifically, France could be called upon to play decisive roles
one day. We deduce that this is one of the perspectives of our foreign
policy. But if it were necessary to integrate Turkey into the European Union
in order to close the deal, we may wonder whether that wouldn't be buying
one diplomatic victory at the price of another defeat.
(1) On "hyperterrorism" see François Heisbourg's important, apocalyptic,
but spot on essay; La fin de l'Occident? L'Amérique, l'Europe et le
Moyen-Orient, [The End of the West? America, Europe, and the Middle East]
éd. Odile Jacob, 21 euros. =====Elections Are Not Democracy By Fareed
Zakaria Newsweek
07 February 2005
The United States has essentially stopped trying to build a democratic order
in Iraq, and is simply trying to gain stability and legitimacy.
By the time you read this, you will know how the elections in Iraq have
gone. No matter what the violence, the elections are an important step
forward, for Iraq and for the Middle East. But it is also true, alas, that
no matter how the voting turns out, the prospects for genuine democracy in
Iraq are increasingly grim. Unless there is a major change in course, Iraq
is on track to become another corrupt, oil-rich quasi-democracy, like Russia
and Nigeria.
In April 2003, around the time Baghdad fell, I published a book that
described the path to liberal democracy. In it, I pointed out that there had
been elections in several countries around the world?most prominently
Russia?that put governments in place that then abused their authority and
undermined basic human rights. I called such regimes illiberal democracies.
In NEWSWEEK that month, I outlined the three conditions Iraq had to fulfill
to avoid this fate. It is currently doing badly at all three.
First, you need to avoid major ethnic or religious strife. In almost any
"divided" society, elections can exacerbate group tensions unless there is a
strong effort to make a deal between the groups, getting all to buy into the
new order. "The one precondition for democracy to work is a consensus among
major ethnic, regional, or religious groups," says Larry Diamond, one of the
leading experts on democratization. This has not happened. Instead the Shia,
Sunnis and Kurds are increasingly wary of one another and are thinking along
purely sectarian lines. This "groupism" also overemphasizes the religious
voices in these communities, and gives rise to a less secular, less liberal
kind of politics.
Second, create a non-oil-based economy and government. When a government
has easy access to money, it doesn't need to create a real economy. In fact,
it doesn't need its citizens because it doesn't tax them. The result is a
royal court, distant and detached from its society.
Iraq's oil revenues were supposed to be managed well, going into a
specially earmarked development fund rather than used to finance general
government activities. The Coalition Provisional Authority steered this
process reasonably well, though its auditors gave it a less-than-glowing
review. Since the transfer of power to the Iraqi provisional government,
Iraq's oil revenues have been managed in an opaque manner, with scarce
information. "There is little doubt that Iraq is now using its oil wealth
for general revenues," says Isam al Khafaji, who worked for the CPA briefly
and now runs Iraq Revenue Watch for the Open Society Institute. "Plus, the
Iraqi government now has two sources of easy money. If the oil revenues
aren't enough, there's Uncle Sam. The United States is spending its money
extremely unwisely in Iraq."
This is a complaint one hears over and over again. America is spending
billions of dollars in Iraq and getting very little for it in terms of
improvements on the ground, let alone the good will of the people. "Most of
the money is being spent for reasons of political patronage, not creating
the basis for a real economy," says al Khafaji. Most of it is spent on
Americans, no matter what the cost. The rest goes to favored Iraqis. "We
have studied this and I can say with certainty that not a single Iraqi
contractor has received his contract through a bidding process that was open
and transparent."
The rule of law is the final, crucial condition. Without it, little else
can work. Paul Bremer did an extremely good job building institutional
safeguards for the new Iraq, creating a public-integrity commission, an
election commission, a human-rights commission, inspectors general in each
bureaucratic government department. Some of these have survived, but most
have been shelved, corrupted, or marginalized. The courts are in better
shape but could well follow the same sad fate of these other building blocks
of liberal democracy. Iraq's police are routinely accused of torture and
abuse of authority.
Much of the reason for this decline is, of course, the security situation.
The United States has essentially stopped trying to build a democratic order
in Iraq and is simply trying to fight the insurgency and gain some stability
and legitimacy. In doing so, if that exacerbates group tensions, corruption,
cronyism, and creates an overly centralized regime, so be it. Lawrence
Kaplan, a neoconservative writer passionately in favor of the war, who
coauthored "The War Over Iraq: Saddam's Tyranny and America's Mission" with
William Kristol, has just returned from Iraq and written a deeply gloomy
essay in the current The New Republic. His conclusion: "The war for a
liberal Iraq is destroying the dream of a liberal Iraq."
Iraq will still be a country that is substantially better off than it was
under Saddam Hussein. There is real pluralism and openness in the
society?more so than in most of the Middle East. Russia and Nigeria aren't
terrible regimes. But it was not what many of us had hoped for. Perhaps some
of these negative trends can be reversed. Perhaps the Shia majority will use
their power wisely. But Iraqi democracy is now at the mercy of that
majority, who we must hope will listen to their better angels. That is not a
sign of success. "If men were angels," James Madison once wrote, "no
government would be necessary." =====High Anxiety By Dahr Jamail
Iraq Dispatches
Friday 28 January 2005
Despite a continuing increase in the already draconian security measures
imposed across Iraq, the bombs keep coming.
Today in the al-Dora district of Baghdad a primary school which had been
a designated polling station was struck by a car bomb. Four Iraqi Police
(IP) were killed.
A GMC packed with explosives rammed a checkpoint at the al-Dora power
plant, killing several people, and as far south as Basra a policeman died
when his vehicle was struck by a roadside bomb.
With Baquba experiencing its daily car bombing, at least 18 Iraqis have
been killed in attacks on polling stations in the last 24 hours alone.
While IP's have been given pay raises for this weekend, they remain
extremely tense and edgy, and not without due cause.
We are driving around Baghdad today attempting to take photos and
conduct interviews, and the streets are nearly completely empty.
An oddity in Baghdad, where traffic jams often find people waiting for
hours in places to creep their way through clogged streets. Over 90 streets
in the capital city are barricaded, further increasing the horrendous
congestion on "normal" days.
I take a photo as we drive past an IP praying behind a barricade which
blocks an empty street. Almost immediately afterwards we hear yelling and I
look back to see an IP aim his Kalshinkov over our car and hear the pop as
he squeezes off a shot.
"They weren't even guarding anything. What was that all about," I ask
Abu Talat who takes us down some side roads in case they decided to follow
us.
"They are in terror of what is to come," replies Abu Talat, "So many of
us are afraid of what is to come now."
We drive past the recently bombed SCIRI headquarters across the street
from Baghdad University, then our circuitous route takes us past an area
where men are lining the streets handing out bundles of posters and other
election propaganda for the Royal Constitution Party, in hopes of luring
some votes.
I'm on a mission to photograph the barricades that are springing up
across the capital city, and one of Abu Talat's sons, Ahmed, is along with
us doing some filming as well. Just after filming more of the abundance of
concrete blocks and razor wire we are pulled over by an unmarked car of
three IP's.
They take Abu Talat and Ahmed's ID's, the registration papers for the
car and tell us to follow them.
I'd been detained by mujahideen in Fallujah last May while conducting
interviews inside the city, and Abu Talat and I were piled into a GMC with
armed Iraqi National Guard (in Fallujah they were all muj), and taken in for
questioning.
So this didn't feel like a kidnapping, since we had our car sans
personal armed escorts. Nevertheless, it's safe to say I was a bit
concerned.
"Should I escape? I could try to get a taxi," I say to Abu Talat. "No.
We're fine. They will just verify we are press. Besides, you are American.
You are the only thing keeping them from throwing me in jail."
From the back seat Ahmed says, "Me too!"
They pull over at a marked police vehicle and everything is sorted out.
"I apologize, we just have to make sure you are press," says one of the
policemen.
Before leaving them Abu Talat felt like having some fun and asked the
policeman, "Why didn't you take the American's papers?"
"The Americans will fuck my mother if I do," he replied. They both burst
into laughter.
Later in another area of the city we are on a sidewalk and see a large
cargo truck with a tattered Iraqi flag on one of the antennae. A crowd of
weary travelers are milling around the back of it holding large travel bags.
"They have just returned from their haj," comments Abu Talat as he looks
at the weary travelers from Mecca. "Welcome to Iraq," he says while
laughing.
From the backseat Ahmed says, "Welcome to hell."
We'd already pushed our luck, so after talking to a few folks we grab
lunch and head back towards home. "Let's play a game and see how many photos
we can take before we get pulled over or shot at again," I joke to them
both.
They laugh, appreciating my acquired Iraqi humor - if you don't laugh at
this situation, you lose your mind promptly. "Yeah, why not," replies Abu
Talat as we speed down another mostly empty street.
Ahmed, 15 years old, tells me one of his friends was shot in the back by
an Iraqi soldier because he drove by an unmarked checkpoint. "He's in the
hospital now, but he's in too much pain to talk to me," he says.
These stories are everyday.
Going through the IP checkpoint at the hotel, one of the guards says, "I
don't think much will happen this weekend. I think it's just a bunch of
lies. Nothing will happen."
After watching his colleague speak, the other guard who is looking under
our hood replies, "We're closing this checkpoint at 5pm today, so no more
cars in or out of here. The coming days will be the worst we've ever seen.
Attacks will spread across all of Baghdad."
Like the election and the aftermath, nobody knows for sure what will
happen here. Baghdad is on pins and needles. Gunfire cracks in the distance
as I finish this. Two distant explosions (the car bombs) rattled the hotel
earlier this evening.
The curfews have been extended and all the security measures are now in
place.
And, as usual, nobody knows what will happen next in occupied Iraq.
=====Some Just Voted for Food By Dahr Jamail Inter Press Service
Monday 31 January 2005
BAGHDAD - Voting in Baghdad was linked with receipt of food rations,
several voters said after the Sunday poll.
Many Iraqis said Monday that their names were marked on a list provided by
the government agency that provides monthly food rations before they were
allowed to vote.
"I went to the voting centre and gave my name and district where I lived
to a man," said Wassif Hamsa, a 32-year-old journalist who lives in the
predominantly Shia area Janila in Baghdad. "This man then sent me to the
person who distributed my monthly food ration."
Mohammed Ra'ad, an engineering student who lives in the Baya'a district of
the capital city reported a similar experience.
Ra'ad, 23, said he saw the man who distributed monthly food rations in his
district at his polling station. "The food dealer, who I know personally of
course, took my name and those of my family who were voting," he said. "Only
then did I get my ballot and was allowed to vote."
"Two of the food dealers I know told me personally that our food rations
would be withheld if we did not vote," said Saeed Jodhet, a 21-year-old
engineering student who voted in the Hay al-Jihad district of Baghdad.
There has been no official indication that Iraqis who did not vote would
not receive their monthly food rations.
Many Iraqis had expressed fears before the election that their monthly
food rations would be cut if they did not vote. They said they had to sign
voter registration forms in order to pick up their food supplies.
Their experiences on the day of polling have underscored many of their
concerns about questionable methods used by the U.S.-backed Iraqi interim
government to increase voter turnout.
Just days before the election, 52 year-old Amin Hajar who owns an auto
garage in central Baghdad had said: "I'll vote because I can't afford to
have my food ration cut...if that happened, me and my family would starve to
death."
Hajar told IPS that when he picked up his monthly food ration recently, he
was forced to sign a form stating that he had picked up his voter
registration. He had feared that the government would use this information
to track those who did not vote.
Calls to the Independent Electoral Commission for Iraq (IECI) and to the
Ministry of Trade, which is responsible for the distribution of the monthly
food ration, were not returned.
Other questions have arisen over methods to persuade people to vote. U.S.
troops tried to coax voters in Ramadi, capital city of the al-Anbar province
west of Baghdad to come out to vote, AP reported.
IECI officials have meanwhile 'downgraded' their earlier estimate of voter
turnout.
IECI spokesman Farid Ayar had declared a 72 percent turnout earlier, a
figure given also by the Bush Administration.
But at a press conference Ayar backtracked on his earlier figure, saying
the turnout would be nearer 60 percent of registered voters.
The earlier figure of 72 percent, he said, was "only guessing" and "just
an estimate" that had been based on "very rough, word of mouth estimates
gathered informally from the field." He added that it will be some time
before the IECI can issue accurate figures on the turnout.
"Percentages and numbers come only after counting and will be announced
when it's over," he said. "It is too soon to say that those were the
official numbers."
Where there was a large turnout, the motivation behind the voting and the
processes both appeared questionable. The Kurds up north were voting for
autonomy, if not independence. In the south and elsewhere Shias were
competing with Kurds for a bigger say in the 275-member national assembly.
In some places like Mosul the turnout was heavier than expected. But many
of the voters came from outside, and identity checks on voters appeared lax.
Others spoke of vote- buying bids.
The Bush Administration has lauded the success of the Iraq election, but
doubtful voting practices and claims about voter turnout are both mired in
controversy.
Election violence too was being seen differently across the political
spectrum.
More than 30 Iraqis, a U.S. soldier, and at least 10 British troops died
Sunday. Hundreds of Iraqis were also wounded in attacks across Baghdad, in
Baquba 50km northeast of the capital as well as in the northern cities Mosul
and Kirkuk.
The British troops were on board a C-130 transport plane that crashed near
Balad city just northwest of Baghdad. The British military has yet to reveal
the cause of the crash.
Despite unprecedented security measures in which 300,000 U.S. and Iraqi
security forces were brought in to curb the violence, nine suicide bombers
and frequent mortar attacks took a heavy toll in the capital city, while
strings of attacks were reported around the rest of the country.
As U..S. President George W. Bush saw it, "some Iraqis were killed while
exercising their rights as citizens." =====Iraq: Who voted and who didn't
and why
By Frontlines staff, with material from agencies
01/31/95 "Frontline" -- BAGHDAD, Iraq – Polling places in some
neighborhoods in Baghdad, Mosul, Tikrit and other towns and cities around
the country were empty. Participation in the elections in those places was
very light.
In other areas of Baghdad, particularly the heavily fortified Green Zone and
some residential areas, throughout the Northern Iraqi Kurdistan and heavily
Shia areas under control of Ayatollah al-Sistani’s political forces, the
polls were bulging with votes and sizable lines of voters could be observed.
The real numbers of this election are difficult to obtain as international
monitors were not allowed to observe the proceedings for "security reasons."
Even if we use the highly unreliable figures distributed by the Iraqi
government and sources close to the US embassy in Baghdad, the results
seemed to indicate a mixed bag, no matter what the different parties are
trying to spin:
Eligible voters: 20-Million
Registered voters: 14 million or 70% of those eligible (280,000 registered
and were eligible to vote abroad.)
Expatriates: only 25% of the 1.2-Million expatriates registered to vote and
about half of them voted in 15 countries. The highest numbers of registered
expatriates were in Siria, Iran and Jordan. In these countries the turnout
was also the highest.
In the US and Britain, the registration of expatriates barely reached 10%.
In the US, contrary to the trends elsewhere, most voters were Christian
Caldeans and Asyrians, followed in numbers by Kurdish. Shias and Sunnis
living in the US were either opposed to the elections or afraid of
participating. Many believed the Department of Homeland Security was
monitoring the polling places.
Total voters on 1/30/05: Approximately 7 Millions or 50% of those registered
or 35% of all eligible voters.
Who got the votes? The Kurdish came out as the big winners in this election.
While they are about 19% of the population, they constituted 33% of the
total vote as they were the best organized and the ones most able to turn
out the vote. All the Kurdish parties ran as a single coalition and will
most likely win over 25% of the Assembly’s seats.
The Kurdish supported the war and occupation of Iraq and had, for over a
decade, established an autonomous region in the north, protected by the US.
Al-Sistani’s United Iraqi Alliance is expected to receive 30-35% of the vote
and Prime Minister Allawi hope to gather at least 25% of the vote for his
Iraqi List. The other parties and coalitions are expected to poll between
15% and 20% of the vote.
al-Sistani demanded elections by calling mass demonstrations a year ago and
forced Bush and the Occupation forces to abandon their plans for more
limited forms of representation.
Abstentionists: 30% of the population did not register and over 40% of those
registered did not vote.
Polling centers were largely empty all day in many cities of the Sunni
Triangle north and west of the capital, particularly Fallujah, Ramadi and
Beiji, The Associated Press reported. In Baghdad's mainly Sunni Arab area of
Adhamiyah, the neighborhood's four polling centers did not open, residents
said. '
Dexter Filkins of the NYT wrote, ' In the town of Baji in northern Iraq,
election officials did not show up. In Ramadi, where Iraqi officials set up
a pair of polling places just outside the city, a total of just 300 ballots
were cast, many of them by police officers and soldiers. '
The idea, mentioned by Condoleeza Rice on Sunday, that any significant
number of Fallujans voted, is considered by many absurd. Most of the 250,000
Fallujans are still in exile, and the city is still occasionally the scene
of fighting. There are reports of some voting in refugee camps outside the
city. Many believe that is motivated by a desire to have a legitimate,
elected government that could effectively demand a US withdrawal.
The more than a dozen parties and organizations calling to boycott the
elections – including mostly Sunni parties and clerics, but also Christian
and left leaning nationalist groupings as well as women's and human rights'
groups -- will claim, no doubt, the allegiance of 50% of the Iraqi
population.
A more objective assessment would establish that they, in fact, represent
around 30% of all potential voters in Iraq.
Although not big organizations, some left wing and Marxist groups and a
nascent Green organization called to boycot the elections as well.
UNITED IRAQI ALLIANCE
The United Iraqi Alliance is said to have the backing of Iraq's most senior
Shia cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. It is expected to receive over
30-35% of the vote.
Muhammad Bazzi at Newsday discusses Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani's role in
the recent elections. He writes:
"Al-Sistani is especially keen to have a role in shaping the new
constitution, which is supposed to be drafted by mid-August and put to a
national referendum by Oct. 15.
"He is concerned about two issues: the role of Islam in Iraqi society and
the extent of the political autonomy that would be granted to Kurds in
northern Iraq.
"The ayatollah wants Islam to be declared the country's official faith and
Islamic law to infuse civil laws.
"He is also resistant to giving Kurds a veto power over the constitution, as
they currently have under an administrative law put in place by the U.S.
occupation. Part of the reason for al-Sistani's backing of the unified Shia
slate is to assure him a key role in drafting the constitution.
"But that is likely to rekindle the debate over the role of clergy in
politics. "Al-Sistani wants to have a strong hand in drafting the
constitution," Shammari said. "This will renew questions about what role he
wants to play in politics." '
The UIA list is dominated by Shia Muslims, but also includes some
Christians, Turkomans, Sunnis and Kurds. It does not include the followers
of radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. The 228-candidate list contains over
20 groups, movements and political parties, including:
The Islamic Daawa party is one of the two biggest Shia parties in Iraq. It
was based in Iran during the Saddam era. It is certain to play a major role
in the new government. Its candidates are on the top of the list.
Party spokesman Ibrahim Jaafari is one of Iraq's two vice-presidents and
could well emerge as prime minister if Allawi is not able to gather enough
votes or convince the Kurdish alliance to make a deal.
The IDP is a conservative party and is the oldest of the country's Shia
movements, with roots going back to the 1950s.
It has suffered some fragmentation since the fall of Saddam Hussein, and may
have lost support because of its co-operation with the occupying forces in
Iraq.
The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or Sciri, is an
influential Shia party that was based in Iran for much of the time Saddam
Hussein ruled Iraq.
Its leader, Abdel Aziz Hakim, is the brother of a top Shia cleric who was
killed in a massive car bombing in August 2003. Abdel Aziz was a member of
the Iraqi Governing Council and he or a deputy will almost certainly be a
major player following elections.
Sciri had its own militia, the 10,000-strong Badr Brigade, until late 2003
when private militias were banned. The body has since been renamed the Badr
Organization and has worked alongside US and UK troops in Iraq.
Sciri's Iranian backing has fallen off in the face of its willingness to
work with the US-backed administration in Iraq.
Badr Organization Central Grouping Party Islamic Fayli Grouping in Iraq
Al-Fadilah Islamic Party First Democratic National Party Islamic Fayli
Grouping in Iraq Iraq's Future Grouping Hezbollah Movement in Iraq
Justice and Equality Grouping Iraqi National Congress Islamic al-Dawah
Party-Iraq Organization Islamic Master of the Martyrs Movement Islamic
Task Organization Islamic Union for Iraqi Turkomans The list is also said
to represent the Yazidi religious minority.
IRAQI LIST
The Iraqi List is headed by Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's party, the
Iraqi National Accord Movement.
The list is a coalition between a number of political groups, including:
Council of Iraq's Notables Iraqi Democrats Movement Democratic National
Awakening Party Loyalty to Iraq Grouping Iraqi Independents Association
The list also includes former governing council member, Dr Raja Habib
al-Khuzali.
Allawi received much economic support from the US and he is hoping to gather
at least 25% of the vote and convince the Kurdish alliance (who disagree
with al-Sistani in the central question of autonomy for the Kurdish region)
to form a majority coalition in the Assembly and vote for Allawi to continue
leading the government.
Allawi was a high ranking official of the Baath Party and a supporter of
Saddam Hussein until the 1970s whe he fell from grace and was forced to
emigrate. He collaborated for the last three decades with both the MI6 and
the CIA.
KURDISH PARTIES (Kurdistan Alliance List) Iraq's Kurds have enjoyed
autonomy in the north since the first US war against Saddam Hussein in 1991.
Their two leading political parties, who were opponents for more than a
decade, have agreed to stand together in the January polls. They support a
united Iraq rather than an independent Kurdistan.
The Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) has been a dominant force in Iraqi
Kurdish politics for more than half a century.
Massoud Barzani has led the KDP since 1979, through decades of conflict with
the Iraqi government in Baghdad and with local rivals. The KDP commands
tens of thousands of armed militia fighters, known as peshmerga, and
controls a large area of north-western Iraq.
Mr Barzani was a member of the Iraqi Governing Council and a lieutenant of
his is now vice-president of Iraq. He or a chosen deputy should capture a
significant role following elections.
• The newer Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) was founded in 1975 and
describes itself as a modern social-democratic party and has branches in
Iran, Turkey and Iraq. It has a history of fighting more radical left wing
forces in the past, including the Kurdish Workers Party in Turkey and
Kurdish Marxists in Iran.
• Under the command of the veteran Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani, the PUK
has created militia forces and a party organization to rival the
traditionally dominant KDP.
• The party's literature says the PUK was founded in order to "rebuild and
redirect Kurdish society along modern and democratic lines".
• Mr Talabani was a member of the Iraqi Governing Council and is likely to
play a key role in the country after elections.
• Nine other parties will be represented in the Kurdistan Alliance List,
reflecting the ethnic mix of the Kurdish Autonomous Area:
• Assyrian National Party • Chaldean Democratic Union Party • Democratic
House of the Two Rivers Party • Democratic National Union of Kurdistan •
Kurdistan Communist Party • Kurdistan Democratic Socialist Party • Kurdish
Islamic Union • Kurdistan Movement of the Peasants and Oppressed
• Kurdistan Toilers Party (Zahmatkeshan) If, as expected, this list obtains
25% of the vote will become the power broker with either Allawi’s faction or
al-Sistani’s forces. Two key issues are at stake: Kurdish autonomy and a
prominent post in the future government for the two main leaders.
OTHER PLAYERS
• The People's Union contains the Iraqi Communist Party, once one of the
strongest communist movements in the Arab world, and an independent
candidate, Hikmat Dawud Hakim.
Communist Party leader Hamid Majid Musa said the list contained "257
cultural, social and democratic figures, in addition to candidates
representing various sects and nationalities". One of those on the People's
Union list is Culture Minister Mufid Muhammad Jawad al-Jazairi, who
represents the communists in the interim government.
The Communist Party was the subject of harsh repression under the Saddam
Hussein regime, but re-emerged immediately after his fall. The party -
which has existed since 1934 and helped to topple the British-backed
monarchy in 1958 - traditionally draws support from poor southern Shias.
The ICP had been harshly criticized by other socialists and communists
around the world for supporting the US occupation. At the same time, several
members of the party, who were minor government officials had been killed by
insurgents in the last few months.
• Arab Democratic Front, 50 candidates, led by Fahran Hawwas al-Sudayd. The
aim of the Arab Democratic Front is to defend the "Arab character of Iraq
with respect to the will and rights of the coexisting sects in it".
It excludes any person who worked in the dissolved Iraqi Governing Council
or its institutions.
• Iraqi Constitutional Monarchy Movement has 75 candidates, led by al-Sharif
Ali Bin al-Hussein.
The Iraqi Constitution Monarchy Movement is "not a political party,"
according to al-Sharif Ali Bin al-Hussein, "rather, it is a comprehensive,
mass orientation". The Constitutional Monarchy Movement has called for a
restoration of the Iraqi monarchy which was overthrown in 1958.
PARTIES BOYCOTTING THE ELECTIONS
• The Association of Muslim Scholars is a Sunni religious body that has
called for a boycott of the elections.
It has taken a leading role in representing Sunni Iraqis in the absence of
any organized Sunni political parties. The lack of such parties is in part
because of the banning of former Baath Party officials from the elections.
Shia religious leaders and US officials tried to persuade the association to
drop its boycott call. The leveling of Fallujah by US forces made any deal
impossible.
• Iraq's main Sunni political movement, the Iraqi Islamic Party, has also
withdrawn from the elections because of the country's poor security
situation.
Other parties which said they will boycott the elections include:
National Front for the Unity of Iraq Shaykh Muhammad Jawwad al-Khalisi
(Secretary-General of the INCC) Dr Wamid Jamal Nazmi (Spokesman) Arab
Nationalist Trend Movement Imam al-Khalisi University Democratic Reform
Party United National Front Iraqi Turkoman Front Iraqi Christian
Democratic Party Islamic Bloc in Iraq Office of Ayatollah Ahmad al-Husayni
al-Baghdadi Office of Ayatollah Qasim al-Tai Union of Iraqi Jurists
Higher Committee for Human Rights Iraqi Women's Association
These political organizations probably represent about 30% of all Iraqis,
including Sunnis, Christians and Caldeans, as well as many university
students and intellectuals.
Copyright: SF-Frontlines
