The democratic revolution marches on...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


The Bush policies are not idiotic from the viewpoint of realpolitik.

Bull****.

[DanS]

I don't know what you would call "evidence" that I could realistically gather

You can't realistically gather any evidence. You posed a hypothetical and tried to pass your opinion of the hypothetical off as fact. I was calling you on it.

Except that the major political crisis, if it had lasted one month, might have significantly changed the results.

But it wouldn't have. It might have changed the ultimate victor, but that's because the number of votes between the two was so small in the close states. It was a coin flip at that point.

[Ramo]

I wasnt thinking of the electorate so much as the politicos. Would Dawa, SCIRI etc have been the same months earlier - or the independents on the UIA slate?

I'm not sure what you mean by that..?

Heck, would the election have been the same before Sadr was neutered in Najaf in August? And once youre that far along, your well into the period when the insurgency is at its height.

Well before April, Sadr was a nonissue. And by what metric do you say that the insurgency was at its height? It seems to me that the insurgency picked up around April when we went into Fallujah (the first time) and after Sadr.

You also certainly wouldnt have had as strong Iraqi security forces available on election day as happened - it would have had a much more American face.

As for the face of election security, I don't think it matters much anyways since it's crappy guerilla tactics to attack during high security; as we've seen, there was very little election violence.

[pchang]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Carter told the Iranians that he wanted a peaceful solution but if the hostages were harmed then he'd go to war. The mullahs have since said the one reason the hostages weren't killed was because they feared Carter would make good on his threat. Besides what to Reagan do to the Iranians that Carter didn't? He negotiated just like Carter and even promised to keep selling them weapons.

And yet, under Carter, the hostages were not released and under Reagan, they were.

[Ramo]

Negotiations over the hostages started again with the death of the Shah and the start of the Iraq-Iran War in around August, and came to fruition during the last days of the Carter Presidency. Bad timing for Carter, but he clearly deserves the credit for the hostages being safely released (and for not propping up the Shah, avoiding a war, etc.).

[lord of the mark]

New York Times editorial

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/01/op...er=rssuserland

[lord of the mark]

I wasnt thinking of the electorate so much as the politicos. Would Dawa, SCIRI etc have been the same months earlier - or the independents on the UIA slate?

I'm not sure what you mean by that..?

The moderation shown by the UIA slate - i think its part of a process of political maturing that was far from complete under the IGC.

Heck, would the election have been the same before Sadr was neutered in Najaf in August? And once youre that far along, your well into the period when the insurgency is at its height

Well before April, Sadr was a nonissue. And by what metric do you say that the insurgency was at its height? It seems to me that the insurgency picked up around April when we went into Fallujah (the first time) and after Sadr..

Im saying that if we had gone to elections in March 2004, we'd have had a major Sadr problem, and a Fallujah problem - they would have made their moves ealier than they in fact did.

You also certainly wouldnt have had as strong Iraqi security forces available on election day as happened - it would have had a much more American face
As for the face of election security, I don't think it matters much anyways since it's crappy guerilla tactics to attack during high security; as we've seen, there was very little election violence..

Yes, there was little violence, cause there was high security. If we wanted an election in March 2004, wed have needed high security then, to ward off violence Given the sorry state of Iraqi forces then (if you want to blame the Bushies for THAT id have a hard time disagreeing) that would have meant all American forces, mostly. And the shot in the arm to Iraqi pride that the Feb 2005 elections have meant wouldnt have taken place. It would have been "an election unde occupation" when almost reverything was under US control - it would have had very different implciations than the election that took place - it would have been less "owned" by the Iraqis.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Negotiations over the hostages started again with the death of the Shah and the start of the Iraq-Iran War in around August, and came to fruition during the last days of the Carter Presidency. Bad timing for Carter, but he clearly deserves the credit for the hostages being safely released (and for not propping up the Shah, avoiding a war, etc.).

Interesting Ramo - you accept Zbig's statement that the US could have propped up the Shah longer but chose not to - ive quoted that myself in support of US moderation, but Ive been told that Zbig was full of it, that there was no prospect of a counter-rvoultionary coup (oddly, those who consider Zbig full of it on Iran, consider him gospel on "the bear trap" in afghanistan)

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Carter told the Iranians that he wanted a peaceful solution but if the hostages were harmed then he'd go to war. The mullahs have since said the one reason the hostages weren't killed was because they feared Carter would make good on his threat. Besides what to Reagan do to the Iranians that Carter didn't? He negotiated just like Carter and even promised to keep selling them weapons.

Perhaps Carter should have said that if the hostages were not promptly released, the US would consider itself in a state of war with Iran?

It was Carter's indecisiveness that permitted the hostage crisis to continue for more than a year.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned


Perhaps Carter should have said that if the hostages were not promptly released, the US would consider itself in a state of war with Iran?

The Iranians would of killed the hostages, then.

[Ramo]

The moderation shown by the UIA slate - i think its part of a process of political maturing that was far from complete under the IGC.

You believe that SCIRI, Da'wa, etc. would've been more Islamist? Or would've taken a harsher stance towards the Sunnis? Why'd you say that?

Im saying that if we had gone to elections in March 2004, we'd have had a major Sadr problem, and a Fallujah problem - they would have made their moves ealier than they in fact did.

But we made the first move in both cases. Especially in Sadr's case, where we triggered the revolt by going after that Sadrist paper. He was a young punk rejected by the Najaf establishment with only daddy's name going for him, and we made him into a hero for poor Shia by having the hubris to think we could break a movement that survived right under Saddam's nose.

Yes, there was little violence, cause there was high security. If we wanted an election in March 2004, wed have needed high security then, to ward off violence Given the sorry state of Iraqi forces then (if you want to blame the Bushies for THAT id have a hard time disagreeing) that would have meant all American forces, mostly. And the shot in the arm to Iraqi pride that the Feb 2005 elections have meant wouldnt have taken place. It would have been "an election unde occupation" when almost reverything was under US control - it would have had very different implciations than the election that took place - it would have been less "owned" by the Iraqis.

Fair point, but I really see that as a reason to delay elections. I mean, surely an elected gov't, even with an election generally under the auspices of American protection, would've given the Iraqis a far greater sense of ownership of their gov't than simply anointing a new gov't. And that elected gov't could've organized Iraqi security forces, etc.

Interesting Ramo - you accept Zbig's statement that the US could have propped up the Shah longer but chose not to - ive quoted that myself in support of US moderation, but Ive been told that Zbig was full of it, that there was no prospect of a counter-rvoultionary coup (oddly, those who consider Zbig full of it on Iran, consider him gospel on "the bear trap" in afghanistan)

Sullivan (Amb. to Iran) seemed to think that Brzezinski was full of ****, but I don't know. Even if domestic support was limited, there was always Iraq to help crush the revolutionaries. Besides, Iran was an important client state, one of the lynchpins of the ME policy, so one'd expect strong support for the Peacock throne just out of inertia.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Odin


The Iranians would of killed the hostages, then.

Really? That would have guaranteed not only a war, but war crimes trials.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned


Really? That would have guaranteed not only a war, but war crimes trials.

Brinkmanship:

[Ned]

Appeasement!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

The moderation shown by the UIA slate - i think its part of a process of political maturing that was far from complete under the IGC.

You believe that SCIRI, Da'wa, etc. would've been more Islamist? Or would've taken a harsher stance towards the Sunnis? Why'd you say that?

from what ive seen theyve been far more moderate on both Islamism and the Sunnis than I would have expected. Some of that is pragmatism that would have also been the case in March of 2003, but I really think some of it is a mellowing process from actually working with the other parties, in the ICG and in the Allawi govt.