Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 12, 2004
Baghdad Fighting

Here are pictures from today´s morning fights in Baghdad. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

The pictures were taken by Gaith, a friend of Iraq Blogger Salam Pax (old blog, new blog).

Gaith reports 20 dead and 48 wounded. According to Aljazeera´s report, an Iraqi photographer working for Getty Images were also wounded slightly by flying shrapnel. Gaith looks ok though. Good, we need these pictures.

Yesterday Gaith made a picture showing Allawi´s hand bandaged because he broke his hand when he banged a table during an argument with an aid. Was he talking with Negroponte? Maybe, but then, that aid relationship is supposed to be the other way round.

Comments

More on the fights: Baghdad Explosions Kill 25, Injure 100

Posted by: b | Sep 12 2004 14:35 utc | 1

Nice article by RICHARD REEVES.
All that, I think, must have been way back in the President’s mind when he branded his war a “castastrophic success”. It is, without doubt, a successful catastrophe.
WHAT IF WE HAD NOT GONE INTO IRAQ?

Posted by: Fran | Sep 12 2004 15:34 utc | 2

It’s not only Bagdhad fighting!
Turkey reacts with fury to massive US assault on northern Iraqi city

Posted by: Fran | Sep 12 2004 17:20 utc | 3

Reuters has a summary of Sundays fighting: New Spasm of Violence Sweeps Iraq, Killing 110
Don´t know how this will be played in the US – probably not at all – but internationally this is a PR catastrophy.
Shooting into weaponless crowds from helicopters while TV cameras are running is not good.
Changing the rational for this from “we couldn´t leave the tank for them to plunder” to “the did shout at the helicopters” is stupid.
Attacking a Turkmen city when your most needed NATO partner is Turkey is dumb beyond understanding.
Key General Criticizes April Attack In Fallujah in WaPo says he was ordered to attack Fallujah after the four mercenaries got killed there in March against his rational and he was ordered to stop fighting after three days again against his rational. The blame is put on Washington.
Everybody wearing uniform must hate their civilian leadership by now.
Could someone drop some brain on Washington?

Posted by: b | Sep 13 2004 6:23 utc | 4

As unfortunate and monsterous as all this is, it all part of the plan. .

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 13 2004 8:35 utc | 5

@Uncle
So this is what “to know a veil” means.
a late night thanks

Posted by: anna missed | Sep 13 2004 8:54 utc | 6

Libertarian tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories? *yawn*

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 13 2004 9:34 utc | 7

It’s totally absurd.
Newsweek: Lost in the Green Zone

The Green Zone is certainly a world unto itself. Women in shorts and T shirts jog down broad avenues, and the Pizza Inn does a brisk business from the parking lot of the heavily fortified U.S. Embassy. Near the Green Zone Bazaar, Iraqi kids hawk pornographic DVDs to soldiers. Sheik Fuad Rashid, the U.S.-appointed imam of the local mosque, dresses like a nun, dyes his hair platinum blond and claims that Mary Mother of Jesus appeared to him in a vision (hence the getup). On any given night, residents can listen to karaoke, play badminton or frequent one of several rowdy bars, including an invitation-only speakeasy run by the CIA. At the Green Zone Cafe—where contractors toting 9mm pistols smoke hookahs while an Iraqi drummer provides entertainment—a sign on the door warns customers to empty their weapons before consuming alcohol.
To some, the Green Zone feels like a vast isolation chamber. One recent night at a saloon called The Bunker, a resident contractor asked, “So, what’s going on out there in Iraq anyway?” He hadn’t left the Green Zone in six months. “It’s like Plato’s republic in here, all of these well-meaning, smart people who want to do the right thing,” says one security contractor and Green Zone regular. “But they never leave here and they have no idea what’s happening in the country they’re supposed to be building. It’s totally absurd.”

Posted by: b | Sep 13 2004 10:33 utc | 8

Want to see the US commit another War Crime?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/broadband/bb_iraq22_hawley12.ram
Sowing the seeds for another 911

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Sep 13 2004 12:32 utc | 9

Bernhard: The US have been taken over by Dadaists. It’s the only logical explanation.
“imam of the local mosque, dresses like a nun, dyes his hair platinum blond”
I know where the next season of “Queer eye for the straight guy” will be shot.
As for all these fools living there, ruling the country without going out, I’m just reminded of “Mene, Tekel, Pheres” written on Babylon’s wall.
“It’s not the fall that matters, it’s the landing.”

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Sep 13 2004 13:44 utc | 10

A bit like that species of spider, that forms a little air bubble around itself, so it can descend to the bottom of the pond to feed.
The project of lobotomizing Iraq into a lassiez-faire capitalist democracy, stands about the same chance as making lassiez-faire American capitalists into tribal Muslims.
Zero

Posted by: anna missed | Sep 13 2004 17:51 utc | 11

Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com:
(W)hile hardly anyone was looking, the U.S. lost Iraq to the rebels. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, along with Juan Cole and Pat Buchanan, were among the few who noticed.
Ramadi and Samarra are lost. Fallujah was never taken, and neither was the teeming ghetto of Shi’ite Muslims loyal to Muqtada Sadr, just outside Baghdad, known as “Sadr City.” The alleged “transfer” of sovereignty to the “interim” Iraqi government has gone well beyond farce, all the way to pastiche. The present script reads like David Halberstam’s The Best and the Brightest, retold in the style of The Simpsons.
The Sunni Triangle is a de facto independent state, with absolute control of Fallujah, for example, ceded to something that calls itself the “Mujahideen Shura Council,” which executes “American spies” (30-plus so far), collects the garbage, and rules according to the many strictures of Islamic law.
The leader of the Shura, Sheik Abdullah al-Janabi, is a conservative Sunni cleric who opposes the American occupation on the grounds that the famed “weapons of mass destruction” proved nonexistent, and hence the American presence has no legitimacy. Although the Bushies are still sticking to the line that the principal armed opposition to the occupation is engineered by “Saddamites,” Sheik Abdullah was banned from making speeches in the mosques in the old days for predicting that Saddam was provoking an American invasion. This administration used the plight of people like him to tout the invasion as a “liberation,” but the Sheik’s answer to them, recorded in this recent interview, is sternly matter of fact.
ROSS COULTHART: So do I take from that that you believe that the fight against the Americans is a good fight?
SHEIKH ABDULLAH AL-JANABI: In my opinion, it’s only natural that you would want to fight invaders and drive them out of your country.
ROSS COULTHART: When the Americans liberated, as they say, Iraq from Saddam Hussein, were you not a supporter of that?
SHEIKH ABDULLAH AL-JANABI: Not only me, but most Iraqis initially gave credence to what they were saying, but after the Americans occupied Iraq, they changed the tune, and instead of hunting Saddam Hussein, they were here fighting terrorism. They ruined our country, committed human rights abuses, violated our cultures and traditions. All these things negated any credibility they once had.
Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admits that it could be months before the U.S. and its Iraqi sock-puppets would even attempt to take the rebel cities:
“Part of that strategy is that Iraqi security forces must be properly equipped, trained and led to participate in these security operations, and then once it’s over, can sustain the peace in a given city.”
Myers is full of it. As the Seattle P-I tartly observed: “That appeared to be a tacit acknowledgment that even if the Americans regained the cities by force, the Iraqis would not be able to control them.” When Sheik Abdullah’s boys carried out a sentence of death against the local Iraqi National Guard commander, the PI reports that “the entire National Guard contingent, estimated to number several hundred, fled the city.” The much-touted “Fallujah Brigade,” which, the Wall Street Journal assured us, was supposed to eventually have responsibility for ensuring security in the city, blew away like so much vaporware. Their commander claims sabotage by the U.S. military, as extended negotiations between the de facto government of Fallujah and the U.S.-backed regime of Prime Minister Iyad “Shoot ‘Em Up” Allawi drag on.
The “transition” is in tatters. No sooner had the U.S. military handed over the Fallujah administrative center to the Iraqi police when 23 were killed in a guerrilla assault, and Sheik Abdullah stepped up to the plate, ready to take a swing at the American occupiers:
COULTHART: What if, even under a new Iraqi government, the Americans are still here in two, three, five years’ time?
SHEIKH ABDULLAH: Well, the new government will be slaughtered first, then the Americans.[…]

Posted by: Pat | Sep 13 2004 19:11 utc | 12

(without name): “Libertarian tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories? *yawn*”
If you are going to use the tinfoil hat discounting technique, at least have the balls to post your name.

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 13 2004 20:18 utc | 13

(W)hile hardly anyone was looking, the U.S. lost Iraq to the rebels. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, along with Juan Cole and Pat Buchanan, were among the few who noticed.
That hardly gives many of people posting here any credit.
Many of us have been impugning against this repugnant war ere the war ever got to going.
What’s so strange is that–right before our eyes–a winnable war became intractably lost.
Bush and his minions could have said:
• No WMD; that’s a VICTORY for us.
• Saddam gone; that’s a VICTORY for us too.
And gone home and paraded and cheered and prayed to the goodness and greatness of their deed.
But instead they got greedy.
Either greedy for democracy in Iraq if you swallow the rhetoric, or greedy for oil if you are cynical.
And so here we are…in a unwinnable war that is only going to bleed American of her treasury and a president whose greatest election attribute is that he will “stay the (losing) course.”
I’ve not seen such sheer madness in my lifetime.
How about you Pat? Anyone else?

Posted by: koreyel | Sep 13 2004 20:25 utc | 14

That would be my loud typing at 4:18 with no name… Murphy’s Law in action. ROFLMAO on myself!

Posted by: Kate_Storm | Sep 13 2004 20:28 utc | 15

What’s so strange is that–right before our eyes–a winnable war became intractably lost.
Koreyel, what makes you thing this war was ever winnable? With out exception, the people I know (me included) were convinced from the very beginning that the war on Iraq would be a desaster. We knew the US would be strong enough to occupy, but never to pacify the country. That was one of the reasons so many of us participated for the first time in their life, in a demonstration, the one against the Iraq war, even before its beginning.

Posted by: Fran | Sep 14 2004 5:15 utc | 16

@ September 13, 2004 05:34 AM
Here, my shadowdy friend, is this difference between Libertarian tinfoil-hat “conspiracy theories” and a mind that has no firewall:
“Belief in the traditional sense, or certitude, or dogma, amounts to the grandiose delusion, “My current model” — or grid, or map, or reality-tunnel — “contains the whole universe and will never need to be revised.” In terms of the history of science and knowledge in general, this appears absurd and arrogant to me, and I am perpetually astonished that so many people still manage to live with such a medieval attitude.”
I don’t believe anything I write or say. I regard belief as a form of
, brain damage, the death of intelligence, the fracture of creativity the
(B.S.)atrophy of imagination. I have opinions but no Belief System .
” Don’t believe anything. Regard things on a scale of probabilities. The things that seem most absurd, put under ‘Low Probability’, and the things that seem most plausible, you put under ‘High Probability’. Never believe anything. Once you believe anything, you stop thinking about it. The more things you believe, the less mental activity. If you believe something, and have an opinion on every subject, then your brain activity stops entirely, which is clinically considered a sign of death, nowadays in medical practice. So put things on a scale or probability, and never believe or disbelieve anything entirely.”
-Robert Anton Wilson

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 14 2004 6:27 utc | 17

@koreyel
It’s interesting. Among the people I know who saw a bad thing coming before the first set of treads ever crossed the border into Iraq – and I wasn’t among those who did – there was not deep suspicion regarding the administration’s motives for going to war. What there was, was a frank questioning of the administration’s judgment – or, even more frankly, its sanity – in choosing to do so.
It’s clear to me now that many, perhaps most, servicemembers, to include planners, fervently hoped and to a significant degree expected that once the regime was out, the whole kit-n-kaboodle would be handed over to the care of Jay Garner, who would swiftly engineer an Iraqi transition and we’d be home for Thanksgiving turkey and medals. There was the belief that this was at least possible, which is better than not. But of course Jay Garner lasted all of 72 hours and the extreme brevity of his tenure remains something of a mystery. (Major, untimely changes are the hallmark of this whole effort in Iraq, going back to the build-up stage.) Why, 72 hours isn’t long enough to really piss anyone off, let alone convince them of one’s incompetence. Besides, Garner could have been replaced without replacing the plan that landed on the tarmac with him. Someone prevailed upon the president to adopt a radically different post-war design. Whoever that was – be it one person or ten – deserves everlasting ignominy. What boils the blood is that they’re still drawing a paycheck.

Posted by: Pat | Sep 14 2004 7:06 utc | 18

At antiwar.com, Anonymous says it’s Time to be Honest About Iraq:
The 1,000 Americans who have lost their lives so far in Iraq are unnecessary deaths in an unnecessary war. But it is not too late to remember their sacrifice with the respect and dignity they deserve. To do so requires the wisdom to end the U.S. military occupation of Iraq and bring home the 140,000 American troops now stationed there. With more than 70 percent of Iraqis viewing U.S. forces as occupiers, not liberators, we have clearly overstayed our welcome. If we insist on staying longer, we run the risk of being forced to leave at a later date under conditions that weaken us militarily and politically. The danger is that – as happened in Vietnam – the U.S. military will be blamed for a war gone bad, even though it was the result of faulty decisions made by U.S. policymakers. That would compound the tragedy.

Posted by: Pat | Sep 14 2004 7:32 utc | 19

G. or, in his real name Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, the photographer, is writing in the Guardian about the Baghdad incident on Sunday:

One of the three men piled together raised his head and looked around the empty streets with a look of astonishment on his face. He then looked at the boy in front of him, turned to the back and looked at the horizon again. Then he slowly started moving his head to the ground, rested his head on his arms and stretched his hands towards something that he could see. It was the guy who had been beating his chest earlier, trying to help his brother. He wanted help but no one helped. He was just there dying in front of me. Time didn’t exist. The streets were empty and silent and the men lay there dying together. He slid down to the ground, and after five minutes was flat on the street.

Posted by: b | Sep 14 2004 7:58 utc | 20

Christopher Allbritton at Back to Iraq says It’s Worse Than You Think:
I don’t know if I can really put into words just how bad it is here some days. Yesterday was horrible — just horrible. While most reports show Fallujah, Ramadi and Samarra as “no-go” areas, practically the entire Western part of the country is controlled by insurgents, with pockets of U.S. power formed by the garrisons outside the towns. Insurgents move freely throughout the country and the violence continues to grow.
I wish I could point to a solution, but I don’t see one. People continue to email me, telling me to report the “truth” of all the good things that are going on in Iraq. I’m not seeing a one. A buddy of mine is stationed here and they’re fixing up a park on a major street. Gen. Chiarelli was very proud of this accomplishment, and he stressed this to me when I interviewed him for the TIME story. But Baghdadis couldn’t care less. They don’t want city beautification projects; they want electricity, clean water and, most of all, an end to the violence.
And in the midst of all this violence, most of the Iraqi Interim Government is out of town. Security Advisors, heads of important ministries and the chief of the new Mukhabarat are all mysteriously absent. The Iraqi security forces are a joke, with the much talked about Fallujah Brigade disbanded for being feckless and — worse — riddled with insurgents who were being paid and trained by the U.S. Marines.
Thousands of Iraqis are desperate to get a new passport and flee the country. These are often the most educated Iraqis — the have the money to get new passports and travel — so the brain-drain will accelerate.
The poor and the disenfranchised are finding their leaders in the populist and fundamentalist Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr or in the radical Islam of the jihadis, who are casting a long shadow on this formerly secular country. Iraq has its own home-grown Wahhabists now, something it didn’t have 18 months ago.
In the context of all this, reporting on a half-assed refurbished school or two seems a bit childish and naive, the equivalent of telling a happy story to comfort a scared child. Anyone who asks me to tell the “real” story of Iraq — implying all the bad things are just media hype —should refer to this post. I just told you the real story: What was once a hell wrought by Saddam is now one of America’s making.
Posted by Christopher at 01:03 AM

Posted by: Pat | Sep 14 2004 7:59 utc | 21

I think it was Tarik Aziz who said just before the war, “if you invade Iraq, you’ll end up chasing shadows”
And after last Sundays news cast showing the US helecopter killing those people, and those kids, and to see that reporter report his own death as the camera churned around and around to the ground — thats what we’re left with….shadows.
My bone marrow says the gig is up, the die’s been cast, game’s over, the patient terminal.
Find the will, get up, walk out of the room.

Posted by: anna missed | Sep 14 2004 8:17 utc | 22

Pat, those are helpful posts. In the year running up to IOF, the things I looked for first of all were the interviews, leaks and stories coming from military sources, along with the push-back, if any such there was, against those interviews, leaks and stories. I even let myself hope that the military would find the means to keep us out of trouble, which of course meant a quick turnover. Then came the firing of Garner, and by the first week of May, you could just smell the explosions that went off in August. Woe betide this country if it ever blames the military for our problems there.

Posted by: alabama | Sep 14 2004 13:31 utc | 23

@B:
G. or, in his real name Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, the photographer.
Read G’s Guardian piece. Not only is he a good combat photographer, he’s pretty damned good as a combat journalist, too.
Thanks for the read.

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 14 2004 14:48 utc | 24

From the Agonist:
September 14 Car bomb outside police station in Baghdad, Oil pipeline blown up. ALSO: Two US soldiers were killed yesterday in Baghdad. 70% of country is now without power, reports MSNBC.
***********************************
You have to go read Victor Davis Hanson at NRO, however distasteful the gooey self-righteousness. I don’t know when he came to the conclusion that he has, but I came to the same one yesterday, as has anna missed, who feels it in her “bone marrow.”
There ain’t but a single thing left on the list of things to do: Get that goddamned election done and over with in Iraq. It’s our exit fee. It’s our ticket home. That one election is now everything, as it’s the only thing keeping our sorry asses there.
The alternative, and it never could have been seriously considered, is ridding Iraq of a few towns and cities – and a few hundred thousand people.
We can’t go all out, so we must get out. But the administration must be able to make good on the promise of “democracy,” under whatever hilarious circumstances and to whatever effect. One vote, one time, and we’re packin’ our bags.

Posted by: Pat | Sep 14 2004 18:25 utc | 25

Re: My 2:25 PM post:
Sorry, anna, if you’re a he rather than a she.

Posted by: Pat | Sep 14 2004 18:30 utc | 26

Pat,
I have noticed your growing despair over the situation in Iraq. You have changed your point of view remarkably in the last month or so, from supporting the war to just wanting to leave. I wonder if something really bad did not happen to a close friend or relative in uniform.
I sometimes feel smug because I was against this war from the very beginning. I must also feel guilty while feeling smug because so many of my fellow countrymen have been killed or worse while carrying out the orders of the criminals in charge of our country. You on the other hand are a bit of an enigma. You seem well versed in the ways of the military and have seemingly bought into the company line. Yet now and then you make comments that seem to come from a starry eyed flowerchild.
Everyone knows I am not the sharpest crayon in the box but you sure do confuse me.
ps, has anyone heard from Outraged lately?

Posted by: Dan of Steele | Sep 14 2004 19:34 utc | 27

Pat, I hope you’re right about that, but I can’t stop remembering that our President’s sole claim to fame as Governor of Texas was the serial killing of 150 convicted criminals on death row. That man just swims in the blood of the human race. He’s not a good thing to be connected with, and a lot of people are connected with him in every imaginable way.

Posted by: alabama | Sep 14 2004 19:52 utc | 28

That one election is now everything, as it’s the only thing keeping our sorry asses there.
wake up! look out the window and there’s still:
14 `enduring bases’
Ambassador Negroponte — “The United States Embassy is a symbol of the unshakeable relationship between our two nations that will stand for generations to come.”
Allawi, Our Puppet with a Pistol
Iraqi Civil Defense Corps, Iraq’s US-trained paramilitary force
and don’t count on the US turning over the physical custody of the detainee listed as Saddam, and many others, to any Iraqi govt.
Actually, the only one constant force truly keeping us there are the troops. W/o their cooperation, this nightmare would have never materialized off the madmen’s gameplan. There are reasonable arguments that this madness will end only when the troops decide to stop participating. However, since a majority are still hanging in there despite the phony casus belli, the underfunding, inadequate supplies, the attempted pay cuts, being used as pawns in ugly & blatant political careering, the backdoor drafts, the strain placed on relationships and livelihoods back home, the rejection and hatred of those being occupied, and the risks of DU exposure/contamination, well… The talk of January elections are aimed more for the US population than the citizens of Iraq. The latter will only be satisfied when the occupiers are driven out and their pride and sovereignty can be restored. UPI is already reporting that an unnamed official source, a US diplomat, is confirming that “the election date may slip.”

Posted by: b real | Sep 14 2004 20:23 utc | 29

@Pat & others
OT, and anna mist (my forlorn anema), my ad-hoc namesake has left my country and has taken a bus across the border to Kamloops BC or someplace. She would like me to leave this place, but I cannot until some things are made right again. If you should see her, tell her she is missed.
Thanks Jack

Posted by: anna missed | Sep 14 2004 23:09 utc | 30

That man just swims in the blood of the human race.
Alabama— No one will ever say you grounded out to the pitcher on a check swing. There is something to be said about standing in the batter’s box and getting your hacks…that’s for sure.
Jack…aka anna missed…that needs explaining. Are you saying someone close to you has gone north to escape association with US policy?
If so… can you elaborate?
If you can’t elaborate in a public place…that’s cool too.

Posted by: koreyel | Sep 15 2004 0:23 utc | 31

Koreyel
That would just be the feme side of my own
mind (anna mist) gone north
However, my real wife says shes ready to go
(too)
Hair trigger mad she is (over US policy)
Sometimes I wonder if I could’a, would’a,
should’a made that move myself some 34
years ago (going through the shit once
again is the price)
At least I’m not ACTUALLY getting shot
at this time around.

Posted by: anna missed | Sep 15 2004 1:27 utc | 32

pardon the runaway metaphores, if i could find a metaphoraholic meeting i would go

Posted by: anna missed | Sep 15 2004 1:41 utc | 33

@Dan
“I have noticed your growing despair over the situation in Iraq. You have changed your point of view remarkably in the last month or so, from supporting the war to just wanting to leave. I wonder if something really bad did not happen to a close friend or relative in uniform.”
Actually, Dan, my despair peaked sometime in June. And my support for the war began to come undone the night its public relations tag – Operation Iraqi Freedom – was announced. About four months later, I was all out of support, and that was some time ago. So although I am not an OIF booster, I do believe that once such a commitment is undertaken, it musn’t be directed by political impulse, range-of-the-moment thinking, and craven fear of negative publicity and hyperactive public opinion. Alas, this is a politically-directed, range-of-the-moment-bound, opinion-and-publicity-obsessed war/occupation. Nothing new, really, just more of it and on a larger and deadlier scale.
No one I know is currently in Iraq. A cousin returned safely in August and an old friend and co-worker ended a relatively uneventful tour in the early spring.
Just so you know.

Posted by: Pat | Sep 15 2004 3:33 utc | 34

@b real
But of course the elections are meant primarily for domestic consumption. “Democracy” is, after all, the final prop of this whole sad affair. And “democracy” – in the form of that first and maybe last election – must be delivered before the withdrawal can begin, lest it be said the administration completely defaulted. That was my point. We are clawing our way to an election, so the Great Going Home can commense.
As I said before, a long-term, visible foreign (esp. US) military presence in Iraq is no longer achieveable. The embassy can remain, circumstances permitting, with a smaller staff and appropriate security force. Allawi is welcome to hang on for as long as he can. There will still be people to train an Iraqi security force, both in the country and outside it. But the security force that really matters is the one that keeps Allawi and Co. alive.
I didn’t think, a few short weeks ago, that elections would take place in January. But later, it is clear, isn’t going to be better than sooner – and, again, it’s my opinion that they are now central to the administration’s plans.
Looking about this evening I found the following at TNR:
“THIS IDEA OF A FUNCTIONING DEMOCRACY HERE IS CRAZY”: Those are the words of a senior U.S. diplomat in Baghdad, according to an excellent piece in Newsweek. As violence spirals out of control and claims of progress are demonstrated empirically to be nonsense, many Iraqis are asking whether holding elections in January is realistic:
U.S. officials publicly insist that Iraq will somehow hold national elections before the end of January. The appointed council currently acting as Iraq’s government under interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is to be replaced by an elected constitutional assembly–if the vote takes place. “I presume the election will be delayed,” says the Iraqi Interior Ministry’s chief spokesman, Sabah Kadhim. A senior Iraqi official sees no chance of January elections: “I’m convinced that it’s not going to happen. It’s just not realistic. How is it going to happen?” Some Iraqis worry that America will stick to its schedule despite all obstacles. “The Americans have created a series of fictional dates and events in order to delude themselves,” says Ghassan Atiyya, director of the independent Iraq Foundation for Development and Democracy, who recently met with Allawi and American representatives to discuss the January agenda. “Badly prepared elections, rather than healing wounds, will open them.”
It’s surely a big deal that the Interior Ministry mouthpiece doesn’t think elections can really occur on time. But he and this anonymous senior Iraqi official are making the mistake of believing that the Bush administration has an interest in or an inclination toward seeing credible elections occur on schedule. You can surely hold elections by January; it’s just that the near-Hobbesian chaos and massive voter ignorance that define Iraq right now ensures that they’ll be farcical. And neither Iyad Allawi nor the Bush administration has an interest in delaying what they’ve said again and again is a milestone for post-Saddam Iraq. By contrast, Bush has every interest in holding up the mere fact of the elections–regardless of their content or the circumstances that surround them–as evidence that his “strategy” is bringing us to a successful end to the war.
Don’t believe me? Here’s Allawi today:
“If for any reason 300,000 people [in Falluja] cannot have an election, cannot vote because terrorists decide so, then frankly 300,000 people … is not going to alter 25 million people voting.”
And here’s noted democracy enthusiast Donald Rumsfeld on Friday:
“The Iraqi government is determined to have the elections take place on time. The United States government is determined to have those elections take place on time.”
Rumsfeld was also up front about what holding elections in January will mean:
“Now, will it be [a] perfect election? Probably not. Will there be places that are — where the violence is being targeted that will probably prevent people from voting? No, it won’t be perfect. But I’ve never seen an election anywhere that’s perfect.”
OK, so he’s not that up front. Iraq is not West Palm Beach. But he does telegraph the administration’s forthcoming line on the fraudulent elections. Just as the administration had previously said the road to democracy was “bumpy”–thereby papering over the collapse of its strategy–officials now appear likely to defend elections in an environment of ignorance and anarchy by saying that no election is ever “perfect.”

Posted by: Pat | Sep 15 2004 4:30 utc | 35

@Pat
Thank you for the clarification and the TNR piece. I took your previous remark too literally. I’m interested now, though, in what you think will happen to the bases if you forsee no long-term “visible” US military presence in Iraq. I don’t have access to a history of the US track record in giving up strategic bases, but Chalmers Johnson’s last book left me w/ the impression that we don’t like giving up bases, period.

Posted by: b real | Sep 15 2004 14:50 utc | 36

Riverbend on Bagdhad Burning has posted again. No comment needed.
Fahrenheit 9/11…

Posted by: Fran | Sep 15 2004 18:22 utc | 37