An Iraqi man smiles as he shows his purple finger to his son moments after voting yesterday in Tissa Nissan district of east Baghdad. (U.S. Army photo by Maj. Russ Goemaere.)
Let us recognize the fantastic accomplishments of the Iraqi people and government in bringing about an amazingly successful polling day yesterday. (And I certainly salute Americans like this one in making the day possible.)
The Iraqi people have suffered through a near-continuous crucible of war and murderous oppression for at least 25 years. They are not in the clear yet. But Saturday's successful referendum marks an enormous step in getting clear, even if the vote turns out to have gone against the constitution.
The reason is that the polling was the first voting in Iraq that was both free and unmarred by violence. Sure, under Saddam the people got to "vote," but the ballots were not secret and there was never an alternative candidate. They either voted in favor of Saddam under the glaring eye of the regime's minders or they suffered consequences. So in January 2003 Saddam announced a referendum on his reign and received 99.9 percent of the vote. What a surprise.
As for violence, there was some in Iraq on referendum day, but not much - only about 10 percent of the number of terrorist-related incidents that the elections of Jan. 15 saw. There were gun battles in Ramadi with terrorists (that likely had nothing to do with the referendum) but Baghdad was practically violence free. ABC News reports,A day that U.S. and Iraqi leaders feared could become bloody turned out to be the most peaceful in months. Insurgents attacked five of Baghdad's 1,200 polling stations with shootings and bombs, wounding seven voters. The only deaths reported were those of three Iraqi soldiers killed by a roadside bomb far from a polling site, and there were no major attacks reported as U.S. and Iraqi forces clamped down with major security measures around balloting sites.In fact, referendum day was much more peaceful than many of the days leading up to it. There were very stringent security measures in place today that have not been in place before, notably that vehicle traffic was prohibited and enforced, removing the chance of a vehicle-borne bomb. In some troublesome places the polling locations were kept secret until voting day, when they were announced by loudspeaker.
Iraq cannot continue to enforce such measures, of course, but they did work Saturday and proved that the Iraqi government is capable of instituting security, however temporarily, that al Qaeda cannot defeat. The vehicle prohibition was no surprise, having been announced many days ago. Despite this ample advance notice al Qaeda was unable to emplace personnel or material assets beforehand to effect attacks. It's hard to imagine what proves their impotence more than this. Sadly, though, we can probably expect a renewed round of violence in coming days.
Even so, I am convinced that referendum day is a new benchmark in the country since America and its allies invaded in 2003. It does not mark the end of troubles nor violence nor internal political difficulties among the various Iraqi demographics. But it is the beginning of the end.
There are still miles to go before we sleep, but henceforth the military side of Iraq's progress will diminish in relative importance to the political and social. The action that most affects the country will increasingly be taken by conferences and legislative assemblies, not bombs and bullets.
My prediction: the defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) is not yet a done deal, but its fate is sealed. Referendum day showed that AQI is the real "weak horse" in the fight. As Alexandre Dumas observed, "Nothing succeeds like success." More and more Sunnis will start to realize what someone told me years ago, that when change is inevitable, you either jump aboard the train or find yourself walking down the track kicking at rusty cans. Even though most Sunnis fear the game is rigged, they will increasingly realize it is the only game in town and they need to be dealt in.
The rate will increase with which AQI's leaders and cells are identified to Iraqi and American authorities by Iraqis, including by AQI's former sympathizers and supporters. I'll even go so far as to predict that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the future former chief of al Qaeda in Iraq, will be dead or in in Coalition hands before the end of the year (although we may not learn of it for some time afterward).
Links:
Cross-posted at DonaldSensing.com
Yes, we must guard against unfounded optimism.
For example, we must not imagine that just because Iraq can establish a constitution, there might also be hope for Europe. So far as we know, there is absolutely no hope for Europe, so let's not get carried away.
The ability to hold elections is an important symbolic milestone (more important than counting the number of dead insurgents), but ultimately there are two bigger things to resolve:
1) It goes without saying its the backroom deals, not election polls, are the real process of what kind of government Iraq is going to have.
Yes or No on the constituion, there is a question of where all the political groups (insurgents included) will fall into place.
2) Max Weber stated that the monopoly on violence within a given delinated territory is the fundamental definition of a government.
In the mid-to-long term, can the Iraqi Government achive this in any sort of meaningful way?
John Robb over Global Guerillas sugggested the El Salvadore option - enlist Shiia and Kurdish miltia to couduct counter insurgencies. Check out his recent op-ed in the New York Times
Until we see visible trackion on both fronts, I cast a doubt on this election as a sign of "the beginning of the end." The coming weeks after the election day will tell. I pray that you are right.
No doubt the people of Iraq want democracy, want freedom - but how will the elites make the compromise that will satisfy all parties invovled and the Iraqi People?
- DJPR
enlist Shiia and Kurdish miltia to couduct counter insurgencies
That's already happening quite without the benefit of Robb's advice. The peshmerga have been crucial to our effort in Iraq since before the invasion and form the core of the most effective Iraqi units to date. There are also a bunch of Sunni leaders showing up dead in back alleys lately, and it isn't US forces that are doing it.
I disagree with Robb on one point - given the history in Iraq under Saddam, it is absolutely of the highest importance that the insurgency be defeated in the name of the government and not by individual groups.
"enlist Shiia and Kurdish miltia to conduct counter insurgencies"
I suppose this is why we (the US) haven't killed al-Sadr yet, which is too bad.
Oh, please, haven't you any shame about turning the corner yet again?
March 28, 2005: In the privacy of their E-ring offices, senior Pentagon officials have begun to entertain thoughts that were unimaginable a year ago: Iraq is turning the corner.
July 31, 2004: [Bush said] "When it comes to spreading the peace, we're turning a corner, and we're not turning back[.]'
July 24, 2003 (from the New York Times, after the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein): "White House officials however exuded determination they had turned a corner in the increasingly difficult task of restoring order from chaos in Iraq."
May 1, 2003: Mission Accomplished.
November 1967: [Gen. William Westmoreland said] "We have reached an important point where the end [in Vietnam] comes into view"
Andrew, I think your monomaniacal (albeit link-rich) approach to this subject is getting the best of you.
For example, was it really necessary for you to provide us with a link to "prove" that Westmoreland said such and such in 1967? Especially since you had to go to the Weekly Reader for Senile Communists to get it? Isn't this getting a little bit obsessive-compulsive?
Hey, Andrew, cut it out!
If Bush and the Media say its getting better in Iraq, IT IS GETTING BETTER IN IRAQ!
Since it's all just a matter of opinion anyway, why not try to trust the judgment of those with the greatest knowledge, wisdom & insight into the situation? Plus, its the PATRIOTIC thing to do.
And, the last thing the Iraqi people need is all this negative energy from Liberals, Armed or not. Haven't you ever read Dianetics? I think only people on the Right really get the causal connection between pessimism and terrorism.
Robin,
Absolutely agree with you. John Robb's suggestion is interesting, but ultimately it has to be of a very limited and controlled role - otherwise it only depress the development of a strong Iraqi government.
And I think someone at WoC already discussed the El Salvadore option? I cant find it anywhere here, can anyone help?
Thanks for worrying about me, Glen, but in fact I was so hasty and slipshod in my research I forgot we also turned the corner with the capture of Saddam.
January 6, 2004: [General Swannack said] "We have turned the corner, and now we can accelerate down the straightaway."
We will be turning corners for decades, as long as "victory" consists of little more than staying in. You aren't defeating any terrorists. You're just defeating the American left and, now, center. It's possible that this prediction is mistaken, of course, but I would think with a track record like yours, more tangible evidence than a one-day lull in violence and an election in which Sunnis voted "no" by very large margins should be at hand before the next triumphalist boast.
an election in which Sunnis voted "no" by very large margins ...
Heavens to Elizabeth, I knew there had to be a cockroach in the potato salad, and you found it. Now I realize that the history of discord between Sunni and Shi'ite and Kurd makes any kind of future for Iraq impossible. Any future except the mass grave, that is, and we had to go and take that away from them, too.
They say that the perfect is the enemy of the good. That's why I never vote for any of you perfect Democrats.
Glen, could you explain to me more slowly. We seem to agree that (1) the Sunni disapprove the of the Constitution by a wide margin and (2) the Sunni are responsible for most of the insurgency (right?). Can you then explain why the ratification of the Constitution will weaken the insurgency in any way?
This isn't "The perfect is the enemy of the good." This is "The spin is irrelevant to the reality", as it has been all of the last 2½ years since Bush danced his premature victory jig on the USS Lincoln.
Andrew I am not Glen but I offer my take.
The terrorist insurgency sought to deny first a vote throughout the country; then vote against the Constitution in sufficient numbers to introduce more chaos through which they can take over in a failed state.
They lost both gambles as even in the Sunni provinces the nos did not reach two thirds. According to mutually agreed on rules, the Sunnis did not get enough no votes to torpedo the Constitution and make Iraq totally ungovernable. The Jihadis said they would do something (defeat the votes; then vote no) and lost both efforts.
That is a major political defeat for them. And also for the Media, which is the only battlefield that really matters (because it's the only battlefield where the terrorists have lots of supporters). We know that the Media and Dems are openly rooting for the terrorists. But it becomes much harder for the Media and Dems to say "hey we liked Iraq better with 'Father Saddam,' than people openly VOTING."
Some Dems have migrated to the position that they prefer despots to democracy, however imperfect, because the trains run on time. See: Farrakhan, Wyclef Jean, Cindy Sheehan, Howard Dean, etc. However for most Dems to take this position publicly just erases any credibility they have on anything foreign affairs or national security. It just isn't a serious position (preferring the "security" of a despot like Saddam to messy democracy, even with car bombs).
I'll give you an example: in the mid 1980's during his war with Iran, Saddam expelled Abu Nidal, world's most notorious terrorist, to gain favor with the US. As soon as the war ended in 1988, Abu Nidal was right back in Baghdad, later joined by Achille Lauro mastermind Abu Abbas. Most Americans know deals with guys like Saddam are worthless.
The victory of the Constitution makes it MUCH harder for Dems and the Media to root for Saddam's return or handing over the Iraqis (and Afghanis) to bin Laden. It also btw pretty much destroys the central step for the dream of the Caliphate.
"Can you then explain why the ratification of the Constitution will weaken the insurgency in any way?"
The elections in December will show a massive Sunni turnout, which will allow them to make adjustments to this constitution. That combined with weariness of having all of their major and most of their minor cities under the occupation of Iraqi army units, their non-Iraqi allies blowing up Iraqis (including Sunnis) willy-nilly, and American combat forces kicking the crap out of any insurgents gathering together in numbers greater than three will induce a political seperate peice such as we we just saw with the first major Sunni faction.
The real question is how can this not be the case. What are the Sunni gaining by continued insurgency besides bombed out cities, dead fighters, and the emnity of their fellow Iraqis? Meanwhile the Kurds and Shiia are prosperous and at peace. What is the alternative for the Sunni at this point?
Andrew, you make a fair point that we have been overly optimistic plenty of the time. But how can you recognize all of our problems and none of the insurency's? What is their upside to continue when a perfectly reasonable settlement has been practically spoon fed to them? Dont they suffer from war weariness, and the errosion of the will to fight, just as you would suggest we will? Are are they inhuman monsters that can never know defeat?
Robin
In discussions over what it means to be a force 1, 2 etc unit at fourth rail, the question of how integrated by religious and ethnicity the Iraq Army divisions are has arisen. One of the commentators has commented that the issue is somewhat moot because of the intermarriage among Shia and Sunni. I have seen this referenced in terms of the tribal/clans of the Bedouins in the Western Desert and some references to it my census. Do you have any insight to this issue in regards to both its civilian and military aspects?