Decius wrote:
] For that matter, it ought to be underlined that as bad as
] Saddam was, he was contained, and a contained Saddam is very
] likely to be better then anything else that we get out of that
] place regardless of how expedient it was to attack him.

This is a joke, right? Some kind of prank post? Or a troll? ;)

Elonka wrote:
] Decius wrote:
] ] For that matter, it ought to be underlined that as bad as
] ] Saddam was, he was contained, and a contained Saddam is very
]
] ] likely to be better then anything else that we get out of
] that
] ] place regardless of how expedient it was to attack him.
]
] This is a joke, right? Some kind of prank post? Or a troll?
] ;)

Let me respond again, because I didn't read what you quoted carefully.

I guess the best way to respond is by asking you to provide a contemporary reference to an author who thinks things will work out positively in Iraq who isn't directly associated with the Republican party and their re-election bid. I don't know of one.

Decius wrote:
] Elonka wrote:
]
] ] This is a joke, right? Some kind of prank post? Or a
] troll?
] ] ;)
]
] Did you read it? Its obviously not a serious proposal but its
] not a troll either. Its an attempt to put things in
] perspective.

I scanned it. It's definitely a different perspective, but I don't think it's been carefully thought through. And I think that anyone who thinks that Saddam and Iraq were "contained" or could be "controlled" or should be given power back if they "made certain promises" has a very limited and unclear view of the situation. Saddam and his crew were a bunch of sadistic, psychotic, paranoid, murderous, lying thugs. They could not be trusted, they never *can* be trusted, and any kind of proposal of, "Saddam has to promise such and such" is just insane, because it's absurd to believe anything the man says, ever. Have we already forgotten the ridiculous statements from his "information minister"? The cruelty with which people all across the country were treated?

I think it's a fair statement to say that many people in Iraq want the U.S. out as quickly as possible. But to say that it would be better for the majority of Iraqis to put Saddam's regime back in power because at least then they'd have "peace"? No, I think that's ludicrous. It's like saying, "Let's bring Hitler back, at least under him the trains ran on time."

I won't argue the fact that things are messy in Iraq right now. And it's hard to focus on the good stuff that's going on there when we're constantly bombarded with news about another explosion, another death, another hostage-taking. Those things grab headlines. The other stuff like building schools, distributing textbooks, digging wells, establishing infrastructure, those things don't make headlines, but they *are* happening. Elections are going to take place. They won't be perfect (heck, ours aren't either!), but I think it's far preferable to stick to the plan and let the Iraqis at least try to decide for themselves what they want, than for anyone to propose putting Iraq back under a brutal dictator.

Elonka wrote:
] I scanned it. It's definitely a different perspective, but I
] don't think it's been carefully thought through. And I think
] that anyone who thinks that Saddam and Iraq were "contained"
] or could be "controlled" or should be given power back if they
] "made certain promises" has a very limited and unclear view of
] the situation.

If that is what you are responding to, then yes, the proposal to re-enstate Saddam was not serious. Its a thought game. Are things actually better off then they were when we started?

] I won't argue the fact that things are messy in Iraq right
] now. Elections are going to take place. They
] won't be perfect (heck, ours aren't either!), but I think it's
] far preferable to stick to the plan and let the Iraqis at
] least try to decide for themselves what they want, than for
] anyone to propose putting Iraq back under a brutal dictator.

"Ours aren't either" is as gross oversimplification. We don't have a problem with vast areas of the country being too consumed with violence to hold an election in.

"I think that anybody that thinks that you can hold elections in the Sunni Triangle by the end of January is really smoking something." - Francis Fukuyama

"Bush's rhetorical flights notwithstanding, this will not be about building democracy. The one obvious lesson learned in Vietnam is that you do not do nation-building in the midst of a guerrilla war.

The United States will neither bring an end to the guerrilla war, nor will it bring democracy to Iraq."

- George Friedman, founder of Stratfor

Jordan's King Abdullah has said it will be impossible to hold fair elections in Iraq in the current state of chaos.

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told senators it might not be possible to conduct voting in some places targeted by militants.

On Thursday, he told a Senate committee that if the election could be held in three-fourths or four-fifths of the country, but violence was too great for a vote in the rest of the country, “So be it. Nothing’s perfect in life.”

Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said Thursday that January elections “may not be 100 percent safe.”

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan suggested last week that there could not be “credible elections” if violence doesn’t abate.

The United States has been pressing the United Nations to send more people to Iraq to help with elections, but U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said this week that any such increase “is critically dependent on the overall security environment.”

-=-=-=-

3/4ths of the country. Would an election in the United States be credible if 1/4th of the geographic area (specifically the populous urban areas) were unable to participate in the election? Would your reasonable response be "So be it, nothing's perfect in life."

Decius wrote:
] 3/4ths of the country. Would an election in the United States
] be credible if 1/4th of the geographic area (specifically the
] populous urban areas) were unable to participate in the
] election? Would your reasonable response be "So be it,
] nothing's perfect in life."

A similar argument could be made the other way around. If a terrorist group decided to try to disrupt elections in the U.S. by igniting one bomb in each of 20 different cities, would that then invalidate the entire election? If car bombs blew up in three different cities over the course of a month, would that then mean that the entire American government was invalid, and Congress should be disbanded?

I mean, there is a valid question here, which is, "At what point do individual acts of terrorism mean that an entire area is declared unsafe or unstable?" In my opinion, if 80% of Iraq's population *is* able to participate in an election, especially such a historic one in such a turbulent time, I think that's pretty good for a first try. But if others disagree and say that the number has to be a guaranteed 90% or 95% or higher, I can see their point.

As a loosely related side point, I had a thought-provoking conversation with a Canadian the other day, about voter turnouts, and how closely that Canada was following the U.S. election. It's an interesting (and probably true) statement, that if Canadians were allowed to vote in the U.S. election, that a higher percentage of Canadians (as a percentage of Canadian population) would probably vote in our elections, than Americans would!

To get back to the original subject though... If all we're talking about is the scheduling of the Iraqi elections, then yes, I agree it's worth re-examining the schedule to make sure it makes sense. But I don't think we should make any kneejerk decisions right now, or probably even over the next two weeks, because of our own election season.

Elonka wrote:
] A similar argument could be made the other way around. If a
] terrorist group decided to try to disrupt elections in the
] U.S. by igniting one bomb in each of 20 different cities,
] would that then invalidate the entire election?

Thats not a fair analogy. Thats not the situation. They are actually not going to hold the election at all in the most populated areas in the country, because its too violent to hold it there.

But you don't have to take my word for it. This isn't about what *I* think.

Every credible commentator that I have found who does not have a personal vested interest in the idea of elections in January has said that democracy in Iraq is unlikely to happen in the short term. I want a counter point. Otherwise I'm inclined to side with several strategists who are now arguing that the U.S. mostly needs to figure out how to limit its exposure.

Fukuyama and Friedman are conservatives. Both of them support the administration. Fukuyama is on one of Bush's advisory boards. They are extremely unlikely to criticize flippantly.

] In my opinion, if 80% of
] Iraq's population *is* able to participate in an election,
] especially such a historic one in such a turbulent time, I
] think that's pretty good for a first try.

Then by your own standards you cannot support the validity of this election!

Rumsfeld didn't say 3/4s of the population. He said 3/4ths of the geographic area. He talks about geographic areas rather then populations because it sounds better. For obvious reasons the violence is occurring where the people are. The 3/4s of the country where they can "hold an election" are vast stretches of open desert and the Kurdish controlled land. We're not talking about anything near 80% of the population.

] To get back to the original subject though... If all we're
] talking about is the scheduling of the Iraqi elections, then
] yes, I agree it's worth re-examining the schedule to make sure
] it makes sense.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about our long term prognosis for success. I'm having trouble finding someone who can say "this is going to work" who doesn't have strings attached to the White House.