Quote:
Originally posted by Gattigap
It's been argued before, and with more screaming, but Friedman today articulates better than I've seen lately the best argument for having elections on schedule on Jan. 30.
- The civil war we want is a democratically elected Iraqi government against the Baathist and Islamist militants. It needs to be clear that these so-called insurgents are not fighting to liberate Iraq from America, but rather to reassert the tyranny of a Sunni-Baathist minority over the majority there. The insurgents are clearly desperate that they not be cast as fighting a democratically elected Iraqi government - which is why they are desperately trying to scuttle the elections. After all, if all they wanted was their fair share of the pie, and nothing more, they would be taking part in the elections.
We cannot liberate Iraq, and never could. Only Iraqis can liberate themselves, by first forging a social contract for sharing power and then having the will to go out and defend that compact against the minorities who will try to resist it. Elections are necessary for that process to unfold, but not sufficient. There has to be the will - among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds - to forge that equitable social contract and then fight for it.
In short, we need these elections in Iraq to see if there really is a self-governing community there ready, and willing, to liberate itself - both from Iraq's old regime and from us.
|
A couple of problems in here: the election is likely to lead to a definition of a limited number of major regional players who will be factors in the "civil" war, not a unified government ready to take a position as "the" government. Iraq's parties are not going to be parties in the western sense, but instead collections of regional or religious interests. Don't be surprised if there some split in the armed forces/police along similar lines, at least practically. There will then be a number of similar factions outside the government in varying degrees of outright warfare.
Also, if there is a complete election, there is a not insignificant chance that the winners would be anti-American or at least anti-occupation; America needs to have its allies win, so it will be in our interests to exclude or minimize the role of some players in this election. It's going to be interesting to see the role the Iraqi government plays in American disengagement, and the fight that erupts between our clients, who have their hold on power much strengthened by our presence, various nationalist and regionalist groups, and various internationalist groups (e.g., allies of Iran).
I think the analysis is right when it says that we uncorked a civil war that is now inevitable. But we're going to try to determine who wins that civil war, and that little bit of messiness is not going to be pretty.
What the hell were the Neocons thinking?
