Dear Hossein, you've had once suggestions for Arabic blogging. So, what do you think I should do to reach out for other Arabic bloggers? How do you think I should go to ping my latest Arabic post on Iraq? Hope you read Arabic or at least have some Arabic speaking commentators/friends. http://arabicjelloul.blogspot.com/2005/01/blog-post.html السيناريو السابع: النموذج الدستوري اللبناني للعراق
- By: Jelloul on February 2, 2005

Jahangir, maybe you should have told me I'm in league with the Bushites before I voted for Kerry. It would have made things simpler. Look, the people who are saying the election is a sham would be saying the same thing no matter how many people voted. They dislike Bush so intensely that even if everyone voted they'd be calling it a fraud. The Iraqis shouldn't have to defend these elections from such attacks - their electoral commission did everything it could to include everyone. If the sunni political leadership encouraged violence over dialogue, than that's an embarassment to the sunni leadership, not to the 60% of Iraqis who voted. And by the way, there are HUGE voter discrepancies in America between ethnic groups. African Americans historically stay home on election day - the response by African American leaders has been to encourage higher voter turnout, not to stupidly boycot elections. And certainly they haven't boycotted elections while quietly approving of the murder of police officers and election workers. Again, this is pretty basic.
- By: Jonathan Dworkin on February 2, 2005

Jonathan, if your objective was, as you put it, to get "under your skin", I should say you have achieved that. It's not only you, all those Bushites get under my skin. But you did not respond to my points. Let me put it this way, lets say in the last presidential election, all the American minorities (including African-Americans, Hispanics and the Jews etc.) did not vote. would you still call the election a legitimate one? That is *exactly* what happened in Iraq. A large minority of Iraqis did not participate. As for the numbers, nobody really knows what the real voter turnout was, since there were no international observers. So they could say 99% and still nobody could contradict. At least they were modest.
- By: Jahangir on February 1, 2005

Faramin, given the security threats and the promise to "wash the streets" with voters' blood, I think a turnout on par with western averages would have been a success. That the turnout appears to have put the west to shame is a statement of symbolic importance for Iraqis. It shows they have the courage to confront the fanaticism that has been unleashed on them, and it gives the lie to many in the west - on both the left and right - who have been quietly muttering that Arab culture isn't compatible with liberal government. Orson I completely agree with you (my comment was meant as sarcasm). The most common argument I've been having with fellow liberals in America is that they should care about democracy and human rights in Iraq regardless of what the Republicans/Neocons are doing. For some reason many of my friends have adopted the attitude that if it comes from George Bush, they must do the opposite. I believe passionately that this is short-sited.
- By: Jonathan Dworkin on February 1, 2005

Jonathan, if your liberal American friends "couldn't care less" about the Iraqi election, I think there is something seriously wrong with them. Liberal, for decades, have been the ones pressing for a move away from U.S. support for some of the most brutal and cynical regimes on earth. Why should Liberals now thumb their noses at what, by your own admission, has been a very significant step forward for Iraq? Does their distaste for George W. Bush lead them to disregard one of his achievements. All this does not mean that Bush was right to invade Iraq, especially after telling the world, in effect, "I will have my war, no matter what." Nonetheless, now that we are there, we ought to do the job well, to the extent possible. This, by the way, does not begin by withdrawing American troops in the midst of utter chaos.
- By: Orson McBain on February 1, 2005

Jonathan, Good points in your supposed reply to my comment, but I'm afraid it has not much to do with what I said. I was replying to this comment of yours: "Voter turnout, on a whole, far surpassed western averages, so the notion that not enough voters arrived at the poll is a bit silly." I was mostly discussing the voter turn out and that IT IS important that, in order to partially evaluate its success, not to compare it with the usually low voter turn out in the western countries.
- By: Faramin on February 1, 2005

Jahangir, I can see I've gotten under your skin. Good. You'll be happy to know that most of my fellow American liberals disagree with me and couldn't care less about Iraqi elections. Faramin, if Iraqis are voting only to throw out the Americans, then that only makes the elections more legitimate. It's perfectly appropriate for Iraqis to want Americans out of their country. As an American, I want Americans out of their country. The important question isn't whether or not the neocons are vindicated (frankly I think they're rather discredited at the moment, even if everything in Iraq turns out well). The truly important point is that Iraqis are rejecting the suicide bomb in favour of the constitutional convention. That's a great thing for Iraq and you shouldn't need a pain-in-the-butt American to tell you so.
- By: Jonathan Dworkin on January 31, 2005

On to Damascus but first, we stopover in Jerusalem..."Rice: Without viable and contiguous Palestinian state – meaning enough land to function well - there will be no peace for either Palestinian people or Israelis. New US secretary of state spoke ahead of meeting in Washington with Sharon aide Weisglass and upcoming visit to Israel and West Bank." (debka) Could the neo-cons win you over if they successfully broker this deal? Could you withstand their gloating if the road map they charted led to peace?
- By: Esmeralda on January 31, 2005

NeoCons:1, NeoHezbollahis (post-medieval Reformationists):-26. Deal with it!
- By: Amir on January 31, 2005

Jonathan Dworkin, as I had expected, the so called liberals in US have copped out, and have left the field open for the Dubya lovers to gloat over this "victory." Even if we assume that a majority of people voted (which we don't know), it was all concentrated in the Shiite and Kurdish areas of the country. I was seeing pictures of many deserted polling station in the Sunni neighbourhoods. As I mentioned in my original posting, about 20 percent of the population did not participate. This was not across the board, but concenterated in the Sunni areas in Iraq. And by the way, these are ordinary people; they had nothing to do with Saddam and his cronies. So we cannot blame them for what Saddam has done to Shiites and Kurds. They did not dominate anything. Well, this is a new first for America and I think Americans should be proud they have such a visionary president; I had never thought that there could be a "secret election", with secret candidates, secret campaigns, secret ballots, secret polling stations and secret voters. And you call it victory for democracy? Please.
- By: Jahangir on January 31, 2005

Jonathan, Voter turnout, on a whole, far surpassed western averages, so the notion that not enough voters arrived at the poll is a bit silly. Don't forget, you cannot evaluate the success of Iraq's elections by comparing it with Wetern elections in terms of voter turn out. For a country which has never had - at least in last 50 years - free and democratic elections (prosuming this one was), the eagerness of the public to participate cannot be compared to Western elections. After all, in Western elections and after each election, there is usually no dramatic change in the policies and everything goes more or less the same way, and people know that. But in Iraq, Iraqis are experiencing something that is SUPPOSED to have major changes in their lives and future. So, in order for the election in Iraq to be successful, in terms of voter turn out, it should be MUCH MUCH more than what is considered a success in the Western elections. So, you see, Jahangir's concern about the voter turn out (among others)is not as "silly" as you think. Beside, who says that Participation of Iraqis in the election is an evidence of approving the Neo-Con's polcies. Bush might WISH to think so, but I think one clear way of looking at it is that Iraqis hoping that by participating in this election and establishing their own leagal government that is recognized by the world, they can then tell the Americans: We now have our legal government. There is no tyrrany here anymore as the government is selected by the people, NOW get out of our country. Perhaps this is a wise way of kicking the occupiers out without bloody conflicts. Despite my disapproval of the US policies, high chances are that if were an Iraqi, I would have participated in this election in order to help materialize getting the occupiers out of my country.
- By: Faramin on January 31, 2005

Jahangir, to respond to some of your points: Voter turnout, on a whole, far surpassed western averages, so the notion that not enough voters arrived at the poll is a bit silly. And yes, I acknowledge that one community in particular felt excluded and had low turnout, but that's not due to any lack of effort on the part of the majority to include them. The fact that a minority that violently dominated now has to accept a power sharing arrangement will inevitably be hard to swallow - but it by no means discredits elections. As for the legitimacy of the process, both the EU and the UN (who opposed the war) are behind the election process. Kofi Annan declared it "an opportunity to move away from violence and uncertainty towards peace and representative government." There's no pleasing everyone. But a minimal degree of reason and perspective will tell you that this is a big step for Iraqis.
- By: Jonathan Dworkin on January 31, 2005

On the one hand I am really happy to see Iraqis in control of their destiny, and on the other hand I am so happy to see the face of liberals on this historic day. Lefties who thought Iraqis are not politically mature and they are the only mature politicians! Although it is a first step towards democracy, but what a great victory by the Bush's administration.
- By: peyman on January 30, 2005

"embolden neoconservatives" You must be listening to too much American 'talk radio'.
- By: George from NY on January 30, 2005

"their dangerous plans for the world" ???? What, like elections? Get with the program man!
- By: buddha on January 30, 2005

Hossein, your first hand is the more noble one.
- By: Jonathan Dworkin on January 30, 2005

I don't think that is the way to look at the issue. We should not really care what neo-cons say or do. We know what their agenda is and come hail or high water they will push for their aims. The main question is whether this election was legitimate. By their own Western standards this election was not legitimate. A large minority of Iraqis (about 20 percent) did not participate. There were not one international observer present at the polling stations. Majority of Sunni political parties boycotted this election. There were no political campaigning since the list of candidate were not published. Polling stations were secrect. I could go on and on. Now whether neo-cons are going to gloat about this so called victory of democracy, frankly I don't care.
- By: Jahangir on January 30, 2005

On to Damascus!
- By: William Kristol on January 30, 2005