Iraq news update: Election time

For those of you who are interested in the current situation in Iraq and the upcoming elections there tomorrow; here are four interesting articles. Happy reading!

"This election is a sham"



"Is the World safer now?"



"Support our troops: Bring them home"



"U.S. tab for war closes in on US$300B"

"Very early in the occupation of Iraq, the Bush administration recognized that a democratic Iraq, even a stridently anti-Saddam one, would not countenance the strategic U.S. goals the war was fought for: controlling the second-largest oil reserves in an energy-thirsty world, and establishing military bases required for undertaking the political transformation of the Middle East to serve American interests.

A long-term occupation to secure these ambitious goals was no less tenable.So even as the Americans proclaimed their mission as one designed to introduce democracy and human rights in Iraq, they fought against demands for early elections even from putative allies like the Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. They also maneuvered to put into place a self-governance and electoral plan that, through carefully circumscribed United Nations involvement, they thought would ensure that the hand-picked Iraqi leadership would enjoy some legitimacy, with the elections scheduled for Sunday providing an added boost of Shiite support.

But as this blood-stained election shows, the complete breakdown of this plan has been one of the most colossal U.S. policy failures of the last half-century. Indeed, this is not an election that any democratic nation, or indeed any independent international electoral organization, would recognize as legitimate."

Iraq: This election is a sham January 28, 2005

"We must withdraw our military from Iraq, the sooner the better. The reason is simple: Our presence there is a disaster for the American people and an even bigger disaster for the Iraqi people. ... It is a strange logic to declare, as so many in Washington do, that it was wrong for us to invade Iraq but right for us to remain. [...]

A recent New York Times editorial sums up the situation accurately: "Some 21 months after the American invasion, United States military forces remain essentially alone in battling what seems to be a growing insurgency, with no clear prospect of decisive success any time in the foreseeable future.'' And then, in an extraordinary non sequitur: "Given the lack of other countries willing to put up their hands as volunteers, the only answer seems to be more American troops, and not just through the spring, as currently planned. [...] Forces need to be expanded through stepped-up recruitment. [...]

Here is the flawed logic: We are alone in the world in this invasion. The insurgency is growing. There is no visible prospect of success. Therefore, let's send more troops? [...]

The definition of fanaticism is that when you discover that you are going in the wrong direction, your double your speed."

Support Our Troops: Bring Them Home January 22, 2005

Where are the weapons of mass destruction?

Who are the insurgents and are they linked to Al-qa'ida?

Where is the anti-war alliance now?

Do Iraqis feel liberated?

Is Iyad Allawi, the interim prime minister, a U.S. puppet?

Is the UN relevant any longer?

Will the Kurds try for statehood?

How long will the soldiers stay?

Is there a humanitarian crisis?

How many died in the war?

Was the war legal?

Did the allies stick to the Geneva conventions?

Did Bu$h's cronies get the biggest contracts?

Is this the first step to reordering the Middle East?

What will happen to Saddam?

Does growing Shia power mean an increase in Iranian influence in Iraq?

What was the war really about?

Astonishingly, two years on there are no clear answers. The Bush admin claimed the invasion was to get rid of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, and destroy a regime that was linked to terrorism. When the WMD failed to materialise, the war was justified (on legally shaky grounds) as a mission to remove a repressive regime, the first step in a democratic transformation of the Middle East.

In truth, Iraq was at the top of the administration's hit list long before 9/11. The neo-conservatives in charge of US security policy had been calling for Saddam's overthrow for five years or more. This they argued, would give the US a new strategic base in the Gulf to replace Saudi Arabia. It would place the region's second oil producer firmly within the US orbit. It would step up the pressure on Iran, meeting a longstanding desire of Israel.

Last but not least, there is a family factor: Did Bush junior promoted the invasion to finish the job started by his dad? Somewhere in this mixture of fear, grand strategy and blinkered ideology lies the explanation for the war.

Is the world safer now? January 28, 2005

(This is a very well researched document of facts we all recognize. Most of the facts behind what happened is brilliantly researched and put together.)

"U.S. President George W. Bush will ask Congress for another $80 billion for the war in Iraq, bringing the price tag for that invasion and ongoing operations in Afghanistan close to $300 billion, six times the original White House estimate.

The total is well beyond the estimate of $200 billion (U.S.) put forward by onetime White House economic adviser Larry Lindsey — subsequently dismissed for his forecast — and is the number Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once derided as "baloney" on network television."

"It also conceded the spiralling costs were the result of an Iraqi insurgency that has surpassed all U.S. estimates in its size and commitment."

U.S. tab for war closes in on $300B January 26, 2005

For those of you that want to get a little insight on what life is really like for Iraqis within Iraq, check out the Riverbendblog.

And last, but not least from the BBC:

Iraq election log:

As Iraqis prepare to hold a landmark election the BBC News website resumes its daily Iraq log. For two weeks, we will be publishing a range of accounts from people inside Iraq about their day-to-day lives.

"Freedom´s on the march, folks!

Time to come out and vote!"

~ p e a c e ~

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit