Open Iraqi election thread

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I don't think the only (or even the outstanding) reason that 53% of the Sunnis support the insurgency is because "they want more than their fair share". It looks like a huge oversimplification (not to say a misrepresentation) to me.

Spiffor: You are right that around halfof the Sunni Arabs support the insurgency, however, much of this popular discontent amoung the Sunni has to do with the lose of their privilaged status. If you are used to having all the authority in government, all the best jobs in government owned industry (and it's all government owned), and having first crack at all the universities or foreign visas then you will not enjoy changes which take that away from you. Even if those changes are just and result from a democratic process.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Heresson
No matter what Americans did in Iraq, they'd still be hated there. That's the reality.

I depends on which neighborhoods you go to Heresson. I always felt perfectly safe in every Kurdish area I visited and we even had to periodically turn away Kurdish volunteers who wanted to help fight. No joke. The Shia also do not hate the coalition though they would like the coalition to leave as soon as the majority Shia government is set up. The Sunni Arabs, for a number of reasons, are the ones who are filled with hate.

[Spiffor]

Oerdin:
Yep, I can understand that the loss of priviledged status is an important source of bitterness for the Sunni ordinary people. And of course, such bitterness is unavoidable for some time.

But I have trouble imagining that the loss of priviledged status is the reason (let alone the only reason) why the Sunnis have such a strong support for violence. Not to explore the reasons, and to dismiss the possible demands, is only bound to failure IMHO. Unless one plans to exterminate a population, it's always a good idea to keep that population sufficiently satisfied so that it behaves. And saying "screw them", or not exploring their motivations, will only end in the utter alienation of the Sunni community. A viable democratic Iraq cannot cope with that.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sava
Muqtada al Sadr and his militia are Shi'ite. Your perception of the insurgency is flawed. The Shia want an Islamic state. The Sunni's want a secular state.

It doesn't seem like any of them want a secular state except for the Assyrian Christians who fear being in an Islamic state. Sadr's play last summer was an attempt to over come his marginalization by Sistani because it had come out in the news that Sadr had assassinated several higher ranking clerics and had attempted to assassinate another one. Sadr is a junio0r ayatollah and he wanted to be the Grand Ayatollah so he started killing his rivals and when it looked like he was caught in the act Sadr attempted to become a popular revolutionary figure hoping that would sweep him into power like it did Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

By and large he failed and the fighting was limited to only a certain parts of three cities. What's more when Sadr ended up in control of those cities his Sharia law and religious courts so pissed the people off that many people asked the Americans to come back and remove the power of the sharia courts. Sistani is the one who controls the Shia and his list 169 will come out of the elections as a prime contender if not the winner while Sadr will be a bit player.

[Sava]

thanks for the info Oerdin...

btw, I'm just some dumb shmuck who relies on Time, Newsweek and online sources. It's nice to hear from someone who has actually been there.

[Dinner]

Spiffor: Yeah, I agree something must be done to understand the Sunni Arabs better and the Sunnis themselves must learn to adjust their expectations to equal time being given to the other ethnic and religious groups. I imagine this is a similar situation to post WW1 Russia where the aristocracy, land owners, and industrialists were violently opposed to the communists due to their lose of status and property. The Russians were unable to avoid a decade of armed violence but maybe the Iraqis will.

[Giancarlo]

Oerdin, I don't know if I got this before from you.. but do you think this was a success?

[Bosh]

To answer the question posed in the now-closed thread: the death toll is apparently now at 44.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Oerdin, I don't know if I got this before from you.. but do you think this was a success?

Compared to the alternative, yes, it was a success. We know have a popularly elected Iraqi government so it will be more difficult for Sunni insurgents to claim the government is a puppet for western Imperialists. That said the insurgents are not going to go away and the low turn out in Sunni areas is a problem because it means Sunnis will now have little voice in the new government and more critically will have little say in how the perminent Constitution is drafted. The reality is Sunnis did it to themselves though so they can't really blame anyone else.

The hard facts on the ground will change slowly if at all and that mans the insurgency will continue those more and more it will be concentrated in the Sunnia triangle and more and more Shia, Kurds, Turkmen, and Assrians will see the 20% of the population who's Sunni Arab as the cause of their country's difficulty. That's might be better then before but it is still a dangerous situation.

[MOBIUS]

A Success - On the face of it...

In Kurdish and Shia areas the election was a resounding success and thankfully with little loss of life - however for a true democracy to operate all parts of the community should be able to feel that they can participate and for whatever reason the Sunnis didn't.

Some will say that they didn't want to for the reasons already espoused on this thread, but it seems to me that the true targets of insurgent intimidation were the Sunnis - hence their low turnout. I believe many genuinely wanted to vote but felt that it was too dangerous and did not because they did not feel safe/adequately protected.

How can the process be truly democratic if 25% of the country and close to 100% of one of the three major groups does not participate?

No matter how you look at it, people against democracy in Iraq will be able condemn the election as being skewed and non representative of the population - so the insurgents have their victory after all as the Sunnis wake up to an Iraqi govt in which they have little or no representation.

[MOBIUS]

BTW - those who saw fit to character assassinate me on the other thread are the self same shower of incompetents who jumped on the WMD bandwagon...

Your stupidity was exposed then as it is now - but then being as this is apolyton, it is only to be expected.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
BTW - those who saw fit to character assassinate me on the other thread are the self same shower of incompetents who jumped on the WMD bandwagon...

I did not even post in OTF during the WMD bandwagon age, but I'm not even sure if you consider I 'character assassinated' you somewhere... if you don't then nevermind.

[BlackCat]

Re: A Success - On the face of it...

Originally posted by MOBIUS
In Kurdish and Shia areas the election was a resounding success and thankfully with little loss of life - however for a true democracy to operate all parts of the community should be able to feel that they can participate and for whatever reason the Sunnis didn't.

Some will say that they didn't want to for the reasons already espoused on this thread, but it seems to me that the true targets of insurgent intimidation were the Sunnis - hence their low turnout. I believe many genuinely wanted to vote but felt that it was too dangerous and did not because they did not feel safe/adequately protected.

How can the process be truly democratic if 25% of the country and close to 100% of one of the three major groups does not participate?

No matter how you look at it, people against democracy in Iraq will be able condemn the election as being skewed and non representative of the population - so the insurgents have their victory after all as the Sunnis wake up to an Iraqi govt in which they have little or no representation.

People against democracy doesn't care much about what the people want, they only want to rule by their way.

Anyway, are you really suggesting that 25 % of the iraqui population still shall decide what happens despite other wishes from the remaining population ? If the Sunnis are that suppressed by terroism, then it is up to them to fight it by voting, not the other way around.

[The Mad Monk]

Oh, I am struck to the quick, verily.

[MOBIUS]

Re: Re: A Success - On the face of it...

Originally posted by BlackCat


People against democracy doesn't care much about what the people want, they only want to rule by their way.

Anyway, are you really suggesting that 25 % of the iraqui population still shall decide what happens despite other wishes from the remaining population ?

That is not what I wrote.

I am suggesting that 25% of the Iraqi population is able to have a proportional say in the government of the country and not be completely shut out from its politics.

If the Sunnis are that suppressed by terroism, then it is up to them to fight it by voting, not the other way around.

Those are fine words coming from the safety of your home, but the fact is that much of the Sunni area is a virtual anarchy. The election in Sunni areas is a total farce simply because any people that wanted to vote didn't feel adequately protected to do so - in fact some polling stations themselves were closed, so if someone did want to vote they may have been unable to do so...