Can’t tell yet. I’ve been seeing reports that turnouts in Sunni areas are really light. No one’s got the foggiest yet as to who or what won and by how much; whether there’s a mandate of sorts, or merely corpse twitching. I doubt we’ll ever get non-spun numbers, but the weakness or strength of the leading parties, and the degree to which the Sunnis are marginalized over the next couple months will determine the badness or goodness of today.
Possible, although by most standards the number of attacks today does seem quite large, although not as large as some of the predictions.
Could just be the same reasons as why there are never terror attacks on the high-profile occasions when everyone is expecting a terror attack (Olympics, Presidential Inaugaration, etc). Why go to the bother of launching an attack today when there are more troops on the streets, curfews, blockades, etc, when you can do it tomorrow?
My only comment is, if the Administration - ours, that is - is smart, it will use this to divide and conquer, and maybe even figure a way to get Iran, in whose interests a Shiite election victory and takeover of the government is, to help us out. I mean shit, we’ve got Chalabi there to help us out with this task.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence yet that the Administration knows its ass from a hole in the wall, as evidenced by their galloping campaign to alienate Iran, which is as stupid as alienating and then deposing, instead of using, a secular Saddam against Osama. So, odds are this falls apart in, oh, a half year or so.
And Arkansas had Orval Faubus to help implement desegregation a generation ago and New York City had John Gotti to help reduce criminal activity and…
Admirable logic, I believe first employed by Lieutenant General J.L. DeWitt: “The very fact that no sabotage has taken place to date is a disturbing and confirming indication that such action will be taken.”
This in support of interning Japanese Americans during WWII. Gosh durn it, anything we don’t understand is a threat!
Of course, it’s entirely possible that the lack of widespread violence means that, A) The insurgency has been weakened dramatically, rather than growing like a weed as the lefties have been claiming, and B) that the high turnout means that the insurgents don’t actually have the support of the population as many of you have been claiming. In fact, it seems to me that the Iraqi people have been literally giving the insurgency the finger all day.
Of course, believing this means accepting that perhaps things might turn out well in Iraq, and therefore the Bush Administration might actually wriggle off the hook for this war, so I understand the need to believe in shadowy mysteries rather than accept the evidence staring you in the face.
tomndebb: point, please?
Chalabi cannot help us.
First, Chalabi’s sole goal has always appeared to those outside the neo-con ring of self-deception to be to accrue power for Chalabi so that Chalabi can wield power. There is no evidence that he has shown any interest in freedom or democracy for the nation of Iraq. (He has succeeded in gathering a small army of personal supporters and he has succeeded in passing (mis)information back and forth between the Iranians and the U.S. administration without the knowledge of the U.S. people with whom he “worked,” but he has never demonstrated a willingness to actually work for Iraqi freedom.)
Second, he is pretty much universally despised throughout the MENA region as a self-promoting thief and liar. People outside Iraq see him as the indicted embezzler and fugitive from justice that he has demonstrated himself to be. People inside Iraq see him as an opportunistic carpetbagger who had hoped to ride Uncle Sam’s coattails to power in Iraq.
His credibility was further destroyed among the “coalition of the willing” when his little espionage capers with Iran were revealed last summer.
The U.S. has relied far too heavily on expatriots in our effort to establish a new Iraq. (Allawi is also known inside Iraq as a man who gains power through bribery and coercion, but after Chalabi was disgraced last summer, the U.S. was forced to accept Allawi’s self-paid promotion unless we wished to admit that we were going to select the puppets regardless of the Iraqi votes).
Of course, Sam, if you have sources of information beyond our ken, you are certainly welcome to bring them. But since your post simply drips with accusation, I am compelled to answer. Right after I note that you offer nothing in the way of evidence but your faith in the Shining One, which you have already expressed.
A) The insurgency is weakened dramaticly. Was that today? Yesterday? On what basis do you make this assertion? Certainly that attacks on our people have not “weakened dramaticly”. And what, pray, is this “as the lefties have been claiming” crapola? Are you suggesting the insurgency is all a manifestation of the liberal media and its fevered imagination? To put it another way, who do you think you’re kidding, here?
b) depends on a central factor not in evidence: that there is an “insurgency”, that is has a single character, and a unified front. It is a classic fact of insurgency and guerilla war: without the support of the people, you’re toast. Because the people will rat you out. If they don’t rat you out because they don’t like you, they’ll do it for a couple of bucks. Here’s my guess: if the general population of Iraq were eagerly handing over insurgents, right and left, there wouldn’t be very many. So, then, they aren’t. Further, if they were ratting them out right and left the admin. would be trumpeting this from the rooftops? Heard any such?
Well, naturally, Sam, I resent your implication, but you knew that before you said it. Yes, things might turn out well in Iraq, the unlikely does occur. But it will not be due to any intelligent planning on the part of the administration you are so eager to defend to the point of mythologizing.
But this can all be settled. Simply bring forth your vast store of verifiable fact.
What verifiable fact? You offered an opinion that the lack of violence was a real mystery you couldn’t understand. I merely offered the suggestion that perhaps it was only a ‘mystery’ because you were unwilling to accept that perhaps this was the best the insurgents could do, because that would invalidate your belief that the insurgency was widespread, had the broad support of the people, and was getting stronger. Hence your cognitive dissonance in trying to parse the events of the day.
Not necessarily, a large proportion of the Iraqi people want the US out of there ASAP, and support the insurgency on that objective; elections and a representative goverment that could materialize the wishes of the people would be another way to reach that objective, so I don´t think voting and insurgency support are necesarilly mutually exclusive for the average Iraqi.
I forgot…
The same can be proposed for the relatively low rate of attacks during the election, insurgents that want to finish US occupation woulnd´t be operating in their best interests sabotaging an election where the majority of the electorate is in agreement with their objective. On the other hand the attacks that did occur are most probably the action of honest to goodness terrorist that are thriving in the chaos of the country and don´t want their party to be spoiled.
Oh, I see now! Me and the liberalmedia, we were making this shit up all along! But you knew better, didn’t you, Sam. That’s why it will be no problem at all for you to cite a few of the many, many times you said exactly that: that there really isn’t an “insurgency”.
But, you know, we sure fooled a lot of folks with our baseless propaganda, seems to me I recall a number of admin types worrying over the effect the (non-existent) insurgency would have on the elections… But not you, right, Sam? You knew better, and said so dozens of times, right?
Say, is there any word yet on the election results? How long will it take to count the ballots? Have there been any exit polls? What will the new parliament look like?
It will take a week to count the ballots, the election results predict a win for the Shia Alliance, but only by a small margin, followed closely by the Iraq list headed by Allawi.
Oh, come on. I never said that. What I have said repeatedly, in threads in which you took part, is that it seemed to me that the insurgency was made up of ex-Saddam dead-enders, al-Qaida, and foreign fighters, along with some percentage of Sunnis who figure they’re about to lose power. I’ve repeatedly said that I saw no evidence of widespread support for them by the population, and the evidence we’ve had when they ‘controlled’ cities is that they largely controlled through brutality and fear and the people were happy to be rid of them once the U.S. military routed them out. I said that the insurgency would not win precisely because it was not a popular, grassroots movement, but the actions of a bunch of thugs trying to grab power from the rest.
You think that viewpoint might be accurate, given the events of the day?
It´s probably a mistake to refer to the ¨Iraqi People¨ supporting one thing or another. I´ve heard the Sunni turnout was something like 10-20%, and most of the violence has occured in Sunni areas, so it´s quite possible that the insurgency has the support of the Sunni population but not that of the Kurds or Shia.
I think that the insurgency has done a fair amount of damage to the election process, both by keeping down Sunni turnout and by forcing a secretive and truncated election where the political parties were kept from revealing their candidates or campaigning heavily to display thier platforms due to the security situation. It remains to be seen how much damage this will do to the preceived legitimacy of the resulting gov´t
Well, Chalabi wasn’t my main point; my main point was allying with Iran to divide both Iraq and the larger Arab world.
I mean, I agree with and am well aware of what a POS Chalabi is. It’s also true that we’re in an impossible situation and there aren’t any cost-free ways of getting out. Given that, dividing and conquering is, it seems to me, the way to go. If we don’t, we could be faced with a three-way civil war - chaos. Therefore, you isolate the Sunnis. In that endeavor, given that this will piss off the larger Arab world, we need a powerful ally. Iran fits the bill. If we get off our obsession with Israel’s interests, we would be able to see that clearly. If Israel had leaders who could see their own self-interest clearly, they’d see it too, since an Arab world obsessed with a Shia Iraq allied with Iran would be no threat to them.
Neither Israel nor the US is in any danger of seeing their interests clearly under the current intellectually challenged leadership each rejoices under, of course, so like I said: by the second half of the year, we should see the whole thing fall to pieces. Chalabi isn’t central to this argument at all, so just ignore that piece. The rest is the way I figure we need to go, but won’t, though.
My last post was addressed to tomndebb, of course.
If you want to see why the US won’t follow its own best interests, simply read any post by Sam Stone. That level of logic and insight is what they operate under.
Dividing and conquering it wouldn’t solve any problems, only enflame them further.