Nice entry Steve... makes better sense than the nonsense I've heard all day on the 'liberal main stream media'...
And I agree the election appears to have gone better than a lot of people thought... 57% is decent turnout considering everything... I stuck my neck out on a different blog and guessed it would go okay Sunday... But not because they love us or democracy... I think Iraqis of almost all stripes and flavors want us out so bad they would almost walk on broken glass make it happen... and if an election speeds the process along - more power to it. My guess is an Iranian-like Islamic Republic can't be too far off now...
Only in the strongest Sunni regions did they really throw down the anchor... and it is fear of that Shiite Islamic Republic that motivates them to resist...
So my question is what happens next...
I am guessing it will quiet down for a while as the insurgents reorganize and recruit... It has been a bloddy month or two for them too... Now with the election behind them there isn't another 'milestone' for quite a while so the rebellion can evolve into a more traditional guerilla war... timeless war of attrition.
My guess is if the Shiite are VERY strong in the new legislature... that the Kurds will be the next group to make a stink. If a Shiite Islamic Republic starts looking more and more likely... my guess is the Kurds threaten to secede... and declare an independent Kurdistan.
That will be the next crisis...
Posted by dry fly at January 30, 2005 09:09 PMSteve,
You should read the article "US encouraged by Vietnamese elections" NYT 9/4/67. 83 percent of the populace turned out there despite attacks and bombings.
1,400 out of 200,000?
Now those 1,400 are the bravest/stupidest people I ever heard of. Talk about standing out like a sore thumb.
Posted by Matt Davis at January 31, 2005 06:47 AMI wonder if their voter turnout percentages are based on pre- or post-civilian casualty populations. If we blew away half the population is that 50% turnout or 100%?
Posted by Dave Carden at January 31, 2005 07:28 AMWent as well as their last vote...50 years ago. Thank God history never repeats itself.
It's always a safe bet to vote for people with names you don't recognize, who belong to parties you don't know anything about, and who run on a platform you've never heard. Hey..come to think of it, that's a lot like the evangelicals voting for Bush. What you get for policy is what you've never heard of before. At least in Iraq they can't claim the candidate lied to them...the candidates had no platform. Bwaa Haaa Haaa Haaa! Oh, the mirth of it all!
You think the Kurds will let us put more than 1 massive permanent military base in the oil fields? Damn, too bad Bush was so open about selling them to the Turks in 2003. You think that may generate a little distrust?
Posted by phidipides at January 31, 2005 07:46 AMJuan Cole writes:
The Iraqi election commission backed off its initial estimate of 72% turnout rather quickly. It then suggested that 8 million voted, or 60%. I don't think they really know, and would be careful of using these figures until they can be confirmed as the vote is counted. I saw them on Arab satellite tv estimating the turnout in Irbil in the Kurdish north at 60 percent. The turnout in Irbil should have been very high, since it is Kurdish and security is good. If that figure is true and holds, it would be an argument against the overall voting rate being 60 percent.
When the CPA turned over authority to Allawi, they were predicting spikes in violence. It didn't really materialize when they thought it would, and the same thing has happened again. The "insurgents" know that the americans are on a heightened state of alert, so they hold back a little and wait for a better opportunity to attack. You can't be in a state of heightened alert all the time....
Posted by zencomix at January 31, 2005 08:54 AM