
Some thoughts on elections in Iraq
by
nadezhda
on Mon 31 Jan 2005 09:57 PM EST
{update Jan 31 9:35PM EST} by nadezhda
This article was written in the hours just before the polls opened in Iraq on Sunday. Since then we've all been absorbing the remarkable, uplifting images of Iraqis by the millions -- of all ages, gender, ethnicity, faith -- celebrating in their "wedding finest" their hopes for their future, and with a degree of courage hard to fathom.
We still await the actual results of the Iraqis' historic exercise of their political voices - one which many of us around the world have long called for. Once the votes are counted, as I note in the article, we'll have a better sense of what possibilities face the Iraqis as they take their next steps toward self-governance.
While we wait the tally, there's been considerable reaction across the blogosphere. As the article indicates, I'm not surprised by the nature of most of that reaction, though I have to admit I'm sorely disappointed in many respects.
Where I can't say I'm disappointed, however, is that chez Nadezhda has been the beneficiary of some of that froth of blogospheric excitation, with links to this essay from a number of other blogs. We haven't been Instalanched, but we have been
"Dispatched" and
"Winded," among others. Thanks for the positive response, and our blogging service thanks you for the extra bandwidth fees!
praktike has an great roundup at
Dean's Nation of some of the best responses to the elections (best from the viewpoint here at chez Nadezhda). The quotes he collects come from the center and center-left of the blogosphere. They reflect the best thinking of those whom Steve Clemons of the
New America Foundation and
Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, describes today as one side of the new cleavage emerging in US foreign policy.
In a must-read essay in
The Washington Note, Clemons explains that the main cleavage of post World War II foreign policy was between the realists and the liberal internationalists -- setting to one side the more strictly "anti-war" left and the "pull-up-the-castle-gates" right . As Steve points out, the dividing lines are now shifting. Those of us whose intuitions draw on the heritage of the post-WWII generation -- Truman democrats (small d) if you will -- find ourselves on the other side of an emerging and vocal alliance of neo-con "heavy" and "lite."
The relative scarcity in the blogosphere of loud responses from Truman democrats is a warning of how rare a bird we "pragmatic optimists" are in the blogosphere. Not surprisingly, I personally believe that's an important absence that needs to be redressed with more efforts like ours here at chez Nadezhda and
Liberals against Terrorism.
{update: Jan 31 11:45AM EST} by nadezhda
Though we don't yet have the election results, there are some interesting initial takeaways. The always reliable Dan Darling outdoes himself with an indepth report on the insurgency and security issues surrounding the election, and what it may mean for the Zarqawi jihadists.
Zarqawi suffered an unqualified defeat today - one that he is not likely to soon recover from. Not only did he fail at his purported desire to derail the Iraqi vote, but he was unable to carry out anything resembling the kind of operations that his group has mounted in the past in either the Kurdish or the Shi'ite areas of the country. This was literally his "make or break" moment in the eyes of the al-Qaeda leadership and goes to show just how limited the insurgency is to a single geographic area of the country, only being able to launch attacks in other areas such as Irbil or Basra with extensive preparation and planning.
See
"Iraqi Elections: Zarqawi Gambled -- and Lost."
{update: Jan 30 12:50AM EST} by nadezhda
Seems there's someone else who shares my suspicions of debating the metrics of success.
Brad Plumer doesn't think much of any "armchair narrative we decide to impose tomorrow."
{Article originally posted by nadezhda Jan 29 2005 4:00PM EST}
Some years ago I concluded that the common abbreviation for the United States of America -- US -- is all too apt. We have become a self-absorbed nation and society that defines everything in terms of "us."
In part, that's just human nature. Recently, however, we've displayed a bit more human nature than is altogether healthy. And rarely more so than in what passes for analysis in the run-up to the Iraqi elections. SuperBowlWeek has nothing on IraqiElectionWeek as a content-free zone of emotionally-charged vapidity.
The phenomenon is shared across the entire political spectrum, but the item that compelled me to the keyboard this morning came from Andrew Sullivan, who asks what the
measure for "success" should be on Sunday.
I asked myself, is this like Howie asking Bradshaw during the pregame show -- if they beat the point spread can we also call the Patriots a dynasty?
I single Sullivan out merely as an illustration of our collective self-absorption -- on both left and right -- that produces such a profoundly wrong-headed perspective on the world. A self-absorbed worldview is a dangerous one in an interdependent world such as our own.
more »