Nation-Building

Before I get to the substance of this post, I want to offer two words of advice – one to anti-war Democrats, and one to pro-war Republicans. To the anti-war Dems first (I’m considering abandoning the terms “left” and “right”), I would caution them to avoid knee-jerk rejection of all potentially good news just because of the justified animosity toward people like Bush or Glenn Reynolds. The elections yesterday were important and are worthy of praise – as is the courage of the Iraqis who faced death to vote. As much as I reject Bush, I’m not going to root for failure just to spite him, and neither should you. If we fail, and if this government fails, then the result will be an all-out slaughter, complete with genocide and ethnic cleansing right in the heart of an already unstable region. That is the reality of failure. And if you’re silently rooting for that reality, you need to take a step back and put things in perspective.

My father was a freedom fighter in Iraq, a founder of several Assyrian pro-democracy groups, and was arrested and tortured; he was also the victim of an assassination attempt.

I write this to my fellow dKosers because I think it is important, in our observation of the war, to realize that many Iraqis did, in fact, support the war and continue to support the war effort. Now, my father and I are both as Democrat-y as they come--I worked on Kerry's campaign, currently work in the Labor movement, and am otherwise active in progressive politics.

So it is important to understand that Iraqis support the war effort and do feel positively about the elections; however, as my and my father's comments on MSNBC make clear, that does not mean we think the Bush administration has handled the war correctly or that holding elections translates to success. I think many Iraqis deplore the military situation over there--yet after 30+ years of Stalinist oppression, we were looking for anything to change the status quo. Today is a day to be positive about what is going on there. [...]

[MSNBC] asked why I, as an American-born citizen, felt it was important to vote. I replied that because people in Iraq were struggling to build a democracy, we shouldn't flunk our duty to support that struggle if we had the opportunity--and casting a ballot was showing solidarity. I also said that as Americans, we wanted to see the occupation end as soon as possible to bring our troops home. I was hoping the follow up to that would give me an opportunity to explain that enthusiastic participation in this election did not imply support for the Bush administration or the war (although I did initially support the war), but rather support for our troops and Iraqis.

Good news has been hard to come by in Iraq for some time. So this unexpectedly high turn-out, relatively low level of violence, and what seems to have been a swelling tide of enthusiasm over the course of the day, is something more than very welcome news. It may also provide some indication or clue to explaining those polls which show, on the one hand, deep-seated Iraqi disenchantment with the US occupation, outrage over the persistent violence that afflicts the country, and yet also an underlying optimism about the future.

Disasters aren't turned around in a day; but this was a good day. Nobody should be surprised that people show up in large numbers in a country where elections have never or only seldom happened; that happens all the time. But I'm not sure I can think of a similar instance when voting has occurred amidst such immediate and credible threats of violence.

I feel compelled to write an essay saying why I am disappointed that more liberals have not recognized that the Iraqi elections were successful. Indeed, they were more successful than I imagined they would be. Really, just because Bush believes something or says something to be so doesn't make it not so. Remember, a broken clock is right twice a day. I have hardly been a strong advocate of this war (you might remember some of my posts to this effect), and would most certainly not support an invasion of say, Iran, because of one succesful election in Iraq. (and I'm sure I'll blog more in the future about issues such as these) But for most of Iraq's population, this election was a success - and is certainly a step in a positive direction.

Of course, I know all that it is wrong in Iraq and what could still go wrong - Sunni disenfranchisement/refusnikism, terrible security, very high unemployment, terrible infrastructure, and so on. But for a majority of non-Sunni Iraqis, this election really does represent a step towards a better life, if only in small measure. What, after all, do liberals believe in? Do we not believe in the enfranchisement of the formerly dispossessed and downtrodden? Do we not believe in democratic elections, even if flawed?

The results of the Iraqi election are the first significant good news from Iraq since the end of the initial invasion. After over two years of chaos, turmoil, terror and Administration triumphalism and incompetence, the Iraqi people and our brave soldiers have achieved an advance for democracy in a part of the world that has only known tyranny.

We should not fall victim to either sour pessimism or irrational exuberance. As the Moose pointed out yesterday, the outcome of this struggle is by no means certain. Iraq will not soon, if ever, enjoy a Vermont type town hall democratic life - hopefully it will not lapse into a Putin like authoritarian state or an Iranian style theocracy. Nevertheless, for the Arab world, what transpired Sunday is profoundly important. Millions braved threats and attacks from fascist terrorists to cast a vote for a democratic future.

Okay, I'll admit it—I've been swept up in the election fervor! From a rational standpoint, yes it's true that elections won't change much, and it's true that all the big problems still lie ahead. It's also generally true, as Swopa rightly points out, that these "one-man one vote" elections owe as much to Ayatollah Ali Sistani's agitating as to George W. Bush's foreign policy vision. But screw all that for now!

The photos from the Times are remarkable and moving. Hopefully the early reports of unexpectedly high turnout will hold up--especially in Sunni areas. And if they do, hopefully that will take some wind out of the "withdraw-now" line, pushed by both some Dems and Republicans. The U.S.'s stay shouldn't be mainly driven by what the U.S. wants but instead by Iraqis. It's what we owe them.

Seeing Iraqis vote yesterday--and celebrating that vote--was awe-inspiring. If the occupation has any reason for being, it's to ensure that we see that sight again and again and again over the coming years. And that involves asking ourselves very uncomfortable questions about what the relationship is between occupying Iraq and establishing Iraqi democracy.

As any reader of this site knows, I have been actively rooting for success in these elections and beyond - even offering my humble suggestions when I see an opening. The Iraqi people deserve this and much more. So it was with some trepidation that I watched the coverage of the elections, waiting for the other shoe to drop so to speak. Thus, it was immensely relieving to see that things went off relatively peaceful (yes, there was violence, death, and bloodshed, but compared to the fears, and compared to the recent levels of each, it was peaceful by contrast).

Unfortunately, there is not much time to bask in the electoral afterglow. As a friend, whose opinion on foreign policy matters I respect, commented to me via e-mail late Sunday: "now comes the hard part." Indeed. I am hoping that these elections have created a certain nationalistic momentum, and an invigorated sense of cooperation that can buttress efforts to tack the Iraqi body politic towards the embrace of inclusiveness and enlightened governance. An entire olive tree needs to be felled and carved up for the number of branches that need to pass hands over the next couple of months in order to see Iraq through its ordeal of fragmentation.

With so many questions left unanswered, so many thorny issues to be smoothed out, and so many compromises needed to be struck, let's hope that these elections mark the beginning of an upward trend toward something positive and lasting. One small, but encouraging step.

BUFFALO -- Sen. Hillary Clinton collapsed during an appearance here Monday before delivering a speech on Social Security.

Clinton was not taken to a hospital and was expected to continue on with her schedule, an aide said.

Clinton was speaking in warm room in front of 150 people, according to one of her aides. She had been suffering from some sort of 24-hour flu.

"She was weak and needed to sit down. She fainted," said the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Colleen DiPirro, president of the Amherst Chamber of Commerce, told WBEN-AM radio that Clinton told the crowd she was feeling weak and had had a stomach virus. Clinton started to speak then collapsed, DiPirro told the radio station.

Clinton was at the Saturn Club in Buffalo, a private club in the city. The general manager of the club said Clinton walked out of the building under her own power and smiling.

"I saw her walk out the door by herself, she smiled and said 'thank you'," said the manager, Vincent Tracy.

Prisoners who had never seen an "unveiled" woman before would be forced to watch as the hookers touched their own naked bodies.

The men would return distraught. One said an American girl had smeared menstrual blood across his face in an act of humiliation.

Jamal said: "I knew of this happening about 10 times. It always seemed to be those who were very young or known to be particularly religious who would be taken away.

"I would joke with the other British lads, 'Bring them to us - we'll have them'. It made us laugh. But the Americans obviously knew we wouldn't be shocked by seeing Western women, so they didn't bother.

"It was a profoundly disturbing experience for these men. They would refuse to speak about what had happened. It would take perhaps four weeks for them to tell a friend - and we would shout it out around the whole block."

Female interrogators tried to break Muslim detainees at the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay by sexual touching, wearing a miniskirt and thong underwear and in one case smearing a Saudi man's face with fake menstrual blood, according to an insider's written account.

'08 reasons why Obama will run for president

Published January 20, 2005

"I am not running for president. I am not running for president in four years. I am not running for president in 2008."

--Barack Obama, Nov. 3, 2004

Oh, but he will.

And here, for your Inauguration Day reading pleasure, are the top 8 reasons why the new junior senator from Illinois will change his mind about '08.

1. He can't be sure when the bloom will fade.

Sure, Obama is a huge celebrity now, an eloquent, charismatic embodiment of the best the Democratic Party can offer. But The Next Big Thing multiplied by Overexposure plus Time equals Yesterday's News.

Momentum like he has now is a powerful commodity, and there's no guarantee--not even much chance--that he'll still have anything like it in 2012.

2. The Democratic field appears weak.

Hillary Clinton has come out on top of every survey I've seen in which pollsters ask Democrats whom they'd like to see atop the ticket in 2008.

But I suspect this is the name-recognition factor at work, and that when primary season rolls around, Democrats will see her as a poisonously polarizing figure who will build a bridge back to the 20th Century and those dreadful Clinton Wars.

Other names mentioned along with Obama include John Edwards, John Kerry, Al Gore, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Joseph Biden, Tom Vilsack, Mark Warner, Russ Feingold, Evan Bayh, Harold Ford Jr. and Bill Richardson.

Among average Democrats, Obama's is the only name that doesn't tend to provoke either a yawn, a puzzled look or an anguished cry of, "Please, God, not again!"

3. The Republican field looks weak too.

Vice President Dick Cheney is out of the picture for health reasons, so unless he resigns and someone else takes his place, the 2008 presidential election will be the first since 1952 in which an incumbent president or vice president isn't running.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani might be formidable in the general election but is too moderate to survive the GOP primary process. Sen. John McCain's time will have passed. Ahn-old can't run because he's foreign-born.

There's talk of Bill Frist, George Pataki, George Allen, Mitt Romney, Bill Owens, Chuck Hagel, Haley Barbour and Jeb Bush, but it doesn't leave Democrats crumpled in despair and resignation.

4. Another shooting-star, hope-for-tomorrow politician is coming up behind him in the Democratic ranks.

Four years ago, Obama was a little-known state senator still licking his wounds after taking a 30-point thrashing in a 2000 congressional primary.

And though we don't know who he is today, four years from now, some currently obscure but brilliant young man or woman will be the talk of Washington and on everybody's short list for the 2012 national ticket.

The brass ring may also still be there for Obama to grab in 2012, but ...

5. A long voting record in Congress has a way of muddying the track for presidential hopefuls.

We're often reminded that, though many have tried, only two men in history--Warren G. Harding, in 1921, and John F. Kennedy, in 1961--have moved directly from the U.S. Senate to the White House.

A big reason seems to be that the legislative process demands significant compromises and yes/no votes on often complicated proposals--all of which opponents then twist, chop into misleading sound bites and throw back in your face during campaigns.

6. The chance might not present itself again until 2016.

If another Democrat wins the presidency in 2008, that person will likely run for re-election in 2012. In 2016 Obama will only be 54 going on 55, but reasons 1, 4 and 5 above suggest he won't be as attractive a candidate.

7. He'll have the money.

Obama is the Midas of fundraisers these days, and his spokesman Robert Gibbs says his campaign fund still (already) has roughly $600,000.

8. He'll want at least to lay the groundwork for future national races.

Win or lose, making friends in Iowa and New Hampshire and testing himself in the early caucus-primary season against tougher challengers than Alan Keyes won't hurt Obama's long-term prospects. His political style is well-suited to small-state races.

Gibbs denied again Wednesday that Obama will run in 2008.

Don't you believe it.