CAVEAT: I don't agree with all of this, but I told my husband that if he wrote it, I would publish it here for comment. The Duck's gonna love this!

PAPER BALLOTS, METAL BULLETS

I told my wife I would have something to say about the Iraqi election when the dust cleared, confident that dust never clears in li'l ole Iraq, but it is as clear as it is likely to be, so here we are:

(1) Disclaimer #1 - The U.S. Bush machine didn't go into Iraq to 'make democracy' and, in fact the war (undeclared constitutionally once again) was sold on WMD and the 'evil regime' premise. I continue to regard this as a dangerous premise that is likely to come back to haunt us.

(2) Disclaimer #2 - I am, for all of it, pro-democracy. Constitutional democracy which insures protections as in the U.S. Bill of Rights, is the more comfortable. My best model for government would be the European parliamentary social democracies, especially those with a constitutional monarch as in Spain, UK, Holland, et al, but I'm ok with constitutional republics as in the Swiss or Irish Republican models. At heart, I detest government and remain a philosophical anarchist.

(3) Disclaimer #3 - Ordinarily I object to an election held under occupation by a foreign power. The U.S. turns a blind eye to African dictatorships and genocidal wars there, allies itself with dictatorships in, say, Pakistan or Uzbekistan, and I find any link to 9/11 and Iraq unconvincing, even doctored.

(4) That said, I find the paper ballot (wish we still had them) election under fire in Iraq last month more convincing than the paperless Bush "election" in November last. We should be aware that the slightly shadowy "Independent Electoral Commission" is hardly that, and that independent monitoring under this kind of circumstance should be an absolute, but Jimmy Carter was not out at the polling stations, the Sunni couldn't or didn't vote, the reports of irregularities widely reported as "six complaints" actually include at least hundreds of complaints by the "IEC" count, and a lot of people just plain couldn't vote, because no ballots, no poll workers, getting shot, etc., and such seems to be rather selective, as with Chaldean Christians. Be aware that a hundred thousand votes cast were thrown out. Be aware, too, that votes were semi-blind for lists rather than candidates who were clearly known, with a complex apportionment system that skews the actual seating-see below.

(5) Still and all, the turn out of 8,550,571 in a country with about 16,000,000 eligible voters (based on CIA population estimates and my own computation) in wartime conditions was remarkable. The Shi'a majority and the Kurds both had good reasons to turn out, but they did, under threat and under fire. Courage is courage.

(6) That doesn't mean this is a feather in the cap of the Bush administration, much less a victory for personal freedom. Voting isn't always the best standard to judge the health of freedom. I long ago came to grips with the enigma of the authoritarian party in the democratic society and concluded that no democracy that opens itself to suicide by vote is very healthy. When Islamist fanatics got voted into office in Algeria a few years back, the Algerian military said, "ahm, uh, no, we are more or less civilized human beings. Vote again." Chaos ensued. But fundamentalist fanaticism was knocked back, and that's good for Algeria, good for humanity. Would that the Weimar military had, in 1932, upon looking at the vote, said, "Hitler? You're kidding, right? Go home, think about it, and we'll have another vote later without brownshirts with torches and drums tramping through the streets." Not real "democratic," I'll grant, but the world would owe enormous gratitude to Weimar's ill-fated army. Mostly, such actions suck. Sometimes, though...in Iran, the Shah, no nice guy he, but educated and knowing what the Mullahs had in mind, banged them with a Maxwell silver hammer, as he did Communists and others opposed to his "White Revolution". So, after a gazillion years, we turned a blind eye as the savior of the Persians, the saintly Ayotolah Ruholla Koumani stepped off a plane from the Eighth Century and proceeded to install Islamist Revolution that rippled all the way to the World Trade Center and our present, dismal, watched, frisked, fear-ridden, boogie-man ridden world, all in the name of "human rights". The Shah, in the relative order of things, was shining sanity. The atrocities in Iran since the Theocracy came to power have been unspeakable, and catching. Why, America wound up backing an obscure dictator in Iraq, Sadaam something, as a relative bulwark of civilization against the Jihad, but that was the '80s, when we were training His Holiness the proto-Mahdi Osama of Arabia in fighting effective guerilla war, something we apparently did rather well. (Did'ja know we shipped steel to Japan throughout the 1930s--guess how they sent it back...)

(7) Which brings us to the election results. The Shiite fundamentalists allied with Iran and the whole Islamist schtiklock (as its called in Arabic) won a majority. 140 or so seats in a 275 seat parliament aimed at drafting a constitution. It was democratic, it was wartime, and America under Bush hath shed to date 1500 U.S.military lives, about 11,000 U.S. military maimed, countless dead civilians, to bring to power the same people we have been regreting putting in power by omission in Iran next door, and defining democracy as a neat way of installing fundamentalism.

(8) The rest of the vote: The good news-as mentioned before, my friends the Kurds held a non-binding vote on independence and voted for it overwhelmingly. Even the Yezidis voted for an independent Kurdistan. Bush, Mr. Diebold Democracy '04, Captain Landslide 2000, will doubtless move rapidly to facilitate the national aspirations of the long-suffering Kurdish people. But don't hold your breath on that one. THe Kurds also took about 75 seats in the Iraqi parliament, being the only sane people around there, now have to be for their own independence while trying to get the best deal out of the parliament of a country they don't want to be a part of that they can. Did I say that right?

(9) The main reason I believe the election was legit - sort of - is that the U.S. backed flunky Allawi's list finished a poor third, after spending mucho cash and blanketing the airwaves.

(10) All others got bubkis. One interesting electoral item that says a lot about the process in this election is down ye list of ye winners of ye seats: The National Independent Elites and Cadres Party (don't ask me) got 69,920 votes and picked up three seats. The Communist Party got 69,920 votes and got two seats. Note the math. I know the "explanation" but I leave it to you to run down, if you care to. Deconstruct carefully. AND WHAT IN THE NAME OF GOD IS A NATIONAL INDEPENDENT ELITE AND CADRE PARTY!!!!

(11) Conclusion, democracy reigneth in Iraq and will spread to NeoCon marching tunes all over the Middle East. Bush was right, I was wrong, and he has my vote for a third term...after all, that would be about as constitutional and freedom-affirming as 1-10 above.

A few days ago they called up the Georgia State Militia, and they'll be off to Iraq shortly. They've been issued shirts and boots. Some are grandparents. Some are enlisted men who last saw action in Viet Nam, you know, my age. Who will we send next? How will we fight the war against the evil-doers in Iran and Syria? What if something REAL happens.

Hold on to your children tightly. Don't let your grandparents go to their VFW meeting. They may be late getting home.

Well, for keeping Mrs. Heart up so often late at night, I guess I owe Mr. Heart a sensible commentary on his much welcome op-ed.

I believe this to be the most important issue which merits micro-detail level investigation at the highest priority by all of this nation's respective constitutional powers, including the people and the media. It's a matter of survival of democracy in the USA for the 10-20 years to come. It is crucial to understand, not only the real motivations which were behind invading iraq, but also which reasons prevailed in the government's decision, which results were expected with their de facto legal implications in regard of US and international law to determine the degree of consciousness this government had of the consequences of it's acts, as well as all the power play involved to get congress to anti-constitutionally relinquish it's constitutional prerogative to declare war.


Looks like we go to the same clubs.


Interesting point which merits a study why. Is Africa considered like Old Europe's back garden, some kind of PR scrupule, contempt, admission of ignorance about Africa and africans, simple lack of interest or lack of opportunities ?

At least, Bush won't be able to justify cancelling or suspending furture elections in the US, now that iraqis held elections in the worst possible conditions and for which he did so much hard work.

Isn't "defending the constitution" ALSO a duty of the military, if the constitution itself is at risk at the outcome of an election ? The question is, have constitutional powers agreed on a yardstick ?

I'll elaborate in a next post if you wish but my cue to your regrets would be:
- The US were already fighting anything communist or socialist at the time of Weimar
- The Shah was ousted and Khomeini was parachuted by Western Oil Companies

In both cases, the world's biggest private financial interests in the US, Great-Britain and France, "pre-emptively" fought and weekened all those, even ideological moderates but strong democrats, who would surely have opposed attempts by extremists to grab power, as well as economically supported those extremists before they made it at the top. In both cases, extremists took advantage of and filled in the political void western powers caused in these countries.

See ? Nothing has changed.

It takes talent to replace Saddam.

Probably the american translation of "Baath", which was undoubtly censored.

Thank you Duck. Mr. Heart does not understand why you no understand his humor? I admit, it's rather buried. I told him I have never seen you laugh anyway.

Sarcasm and humor is two bedfellows that not always goes hand in hand

But i did like the master of the house little post

If you flatter him with this "master of the house business" I'll puke:), it will go to his head believe me!

Awww, shucks. It's really a matter of writing style.
I can promise you guys that in any mid-length to lengthy post there is at least one paragraph full of fun stuff to read.

The trick is the humor is in between the lines.
To discover it, you need to negate everything written in that paragraph, turning the meaning around. I take great care at polishing open and closed meanings, inclusions, exclusion and negations to take advantage of the imagination of the reader.

Heart,

By allowing his stuff to be placed here, Mr. Heart opens himself up to examination. What does Mr. Heart do for a living?

What did you not agree with?

I didn't agree with his conclusion that he was wrong and Bush was right.

-Pegatha

Too funny! Thanks, Mr. Heart, for posting here!

In other countries a person is asked about their family and their hobbies way before "what they do for a living". In the US, that's some defining characteristic:).

He has had his years in the sun, and is now 58 and disabled.

I don't think he comes to the conclusion that Bush really won, read point 6 again to see the way he thinks "Bush won".

Here is where I disagree. It makes for interesting living room discussion:

Where I disagree

point 1- I believe that the only real reason the Bush administration went to Iraq was to establish democracy because democracies are worried about improving their lives and dictators must focus their populations on an external foe to stay in power. The democratization of the middle east was the real reason for the war, and all other things were side benefits.

2. I agree with point 2.

3. I think there was some links to some al queda cells from Baghdad, but no more so than any other middle eastern coutry. But no link to 9/11.

4. I believe that the Iraqis knew exactly who they were voting for, because all the people I talked to, both inside and outside of Iraq knew. It's extremely difficult to keep secrets like that in Iraq.

5. I agree 100% with number 5 and even number 6 because it does no good to democracy to elect people who will not give you the second election. The second election, or the third, done voluntarily, and given a real choice, is the true test of democracy, not the vote in and of itself.

7. I don't think that the Iraqi winners are going to be like the Mullahs in Iran. I think they see where they went wrong. However, I am fearful that they will turn in that direction and all of this will be for naught.

8. I agree whole-heartedly.

9. I can see that point.

10. I found out that the National Independent Elites and Cadres Party was Al Sadr's Party.

11. My husband spits when he even sees Bush LOL! You have to see the humor in that one.

12. Notice he calls it the Georgia State Militia...there is humor in that! He heard they were calling them up and some of them were in their 50's and he was angry. Our son in in Jr. ROTC, and he is a bit skittish about this whole Iraq thing, much less the "march of democracy".