It's hard to read about the jubilation of Iraqi voters without my eyes tearing up.
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Some came on crutches, others walked for miles then struggled to read the ballot, but across Iraq, millions turned out to vote Sunday, defying insurgents who threatened a bloodbath. ...Even in Falluja, the Sunni city west of Baghdad that was a militant stronghold until a U.S. assault in November, a steady stream of people turned out, confounding expectations. Lines of veiled women clutching their papers waited to vote.
"We want to be like other Iraqis, we don't want to always be in opposition," said Ahmed Jassim, smiling after he voted.
Good for you, Mr. Jassim. That's the kind of spirit that's going to be required for you to rebuild your country.
In Baquba, a rebellious city northeast of Baghdad, spirited crowds clapped and cheered at one voting station. In Mosul, scene of some of the worst insurgent attacks in recent months, U.S. and local officials said turnout was surprisingly high. ...Even in the so-called "triangle of death," a hotbed of Sunni insurgency south of Baghdad, turnout was solid, officials said. ...
Samir Hassan, 32, who lost his leg in a car bomb blast in October, was determined to vote. "I would have crawled here if I had to. I don't want terrorists to kill other Iraqis like they tried to kill me. Today I am voting for peace," he said, leaning on his metal crutches, determination in his reddened eyes.
Americans, Brits, Poles, Aussies, and other foreigners aren't the only ones who have suffered and died for Iraq, despite the way many news reports portray it. Most of the blood has been shed by Iraqis themselves, and this is a great day for their country. A great success.
In Sadr City, a poor Shi'ite neighborhood of northeast Baghdad, thick lines of voters turned out, women in black abaya robes in one line, men in another.
If Sadr City sounds familiar, it's because it was the headquarters of that radical Shi'ite cleric who led a rebellion last year, funded by Iran. And now the people are voting.
One of the biggest surprises was Mosul, a mixed Sunni Arab and Kurd city in the far north. "So far it's gone very well, much better than expected," said a U.S. army officer.Baghdad's mayor was overcome with emotion by the turnout of voters at City Hall, where he said thousands were celebrating.
"I cannot describe what I am seeing. It is incredible. This is a vote for the future, for the children, for the rule of law, for humanity, for love," Alaa al-Tamimi told Reuters.
Indeed. Americans can learn a thing or two from the Iraqis -- maybe we could get a few thousand gallons of that indelible ink that prevents people from voting more than once, for starters.
There's a particularly encouraging report from Iraq the Model:
The first thing we saw this morning on our way to the voting center was a convoy of the Iraqi army vehicles patrolling the street, the soldiers were cheering the people marching towards their voting centers then one of the soldiers chanted "vote for Allawi" less than a hundred meters, the convoy stopped and the captain in charge yelled at the soldier who did that and said: "You're a member of the military institution and you have absolutely no right to support any political entity or interfere with the people's choice. This is Iraq's army, not Allawi's". This was a good sign indeed and the young officer's statement was met by applause from the people on the street.
Hammorabi has pictures from polling stations.
Jeffrey at Iraqi Bloggers Central has a summary of blog coverage, largely by Iraqi bloggers I hadn't heard about until now.
Steven Vincent issues a stern rebuke to lefties like Marko Zuniga:
And what of our friends on the Left? I'm sorry they can't share in our joy--because there is no reason they should not. Alas, like the Muslim Scholars Association, they, too, decided to "boycott" the elections. For example, here is what the great lefty website Daily Kos had to say yesterday:The war is long past lost. Time to pack it in, and save the lives of our men and women in uniform that will otherwise face a barrage of bullets and RPG rounds during their extended stay in the desert.Clearly, Dean-shill Marko Zuniga has an odd perception of liberalism. On a day when millions of Iraqi citizens stood up against the specter of fascism to exercise their rights as free and dignified human beings, Zuniga claims the election is "simply an exercise in pretty pictures." Tell that to the Iraqis who danced and cried for joy at the chance to vote, Mr. Zuniga. Tell that to people who have suffered for decades under a tyrant whose crimes were brutal to the point of madness. Tell that to the men and women who died to make this day a reality.
Doesn't it bother the Left that they've positioned themselves such that today -- such a great day for Democracy -- they're inescapably grouped with losers like Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, doomed to the wrong side of history?
Hindrocket at Power Line Blog has more pictures of Iraqi's voting. Friends of Democracy has election day photos also.
MW: "they're inescapably grouped with losers like Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, doomed to the wrong side of history?"
It's getting pretty deep in here. I guess I should've worn my hip-waders.
It is good that the Iraqi people participated in these elections in a meaningful way.
The elections were a success, by and large... a success that is equalled only by the difficulties that lie ahead.
Where is the Congressional Black Caucus when you need it?
Am I the only one noticing the long lines that the Iraqi voters had to endure to cast their ballots?
Is Senator Boxer already thinking in fundraising?
"Doesn't it bother the Left that...they're inescapably grouped with losers like Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, doomed to the wrong side of history?"
I imagine no more so than it bothered them when the Berlin Wall fell. There are too many people busying themselves with daydreams of the glory days of the Civil Rights Movement to spare a thought for what's going on in the world today as a result of their other policies.
I think we need to separate the policy from what the policy turned into by either the people administering or utilizing it.
Lots of policies.. with good intentions.. get ruined for one reason or another by consequences of both the predictable and unpredictable variety.
As such, it's both misleading and grossly inaccurate to generalize today's realities and problems as being precipitated entirely by one ideology or the other.
My problem with most leftist policy is that the consequences are remarkably predictable, long in advance, because they ignore basic elements of human nature in the glow of idealistic drive to "do something." The collapse of Communism, for example, shouldn't have been a shock to anyone -- it's inevitable that when a small group of people is given absolute power over the lives of a nation, with no checks or balances, they will abuse it. Even if the initial group of people to take those seats is good-intentioned, they will ultimately be succeeded by aspiring tyrants. Creation of positions of power will inspire those who seek power to seek those positions. The only solution to limit the damage is to limit the power an individual can wield.
Understanding this doesn't take a crystal ball, just a basic knowledge of history and observation of the actions of humans, without the rosy glasses of self-delusion. Likewise, the sympathetic whining now going on about how Islam is a "religion of peace" and how Al-Qaeda and its ilk are "justifiably" angry at the US for its "interventionist" policy is utter crap, made possible only by those same rosy glasses.
There are too many people out there for whom self-gratification comes in the form of group flagellation. It's almost always done using the "we" apology to spread blame: "we've abused your country," "we've exploited your resources," etc. Behind all of these programs is a keen desire for self-righteousness at minimal cost. People want to gain the happy glow of moral superiority over their "unenlightened" countrymen without actually doing a damn thing to help -- hence the massive government programs that rob everyone's pockets and redistribute wealth. Hence the endless "diplomacy" which never reaches any concrete goals, but makes the people doing the talking feel like they're "doing something about the problem."
In short, the whole problem with the Left over the past forty years has been that the ideology has stressed "feeling good" over "doing good," by measuring the "goodness" of actions instead of the efficiency of the results.
So yes, I blame the ideology, and the good intentions. Calculation may be cold and unfeeling, but it has a better track record of measuring true impact than the glow of emotion.
Rosy glasses of self-delusion, huh? You think the Left is the only ideology guilty of that? Hardly.
Government spending is too high, I agree.
Endless diplomacy? I'm sorry, but the threat of military action.. or actually following through on such a threat.. is not going to solve every problem we face as a nation. Don't mistake a calculated diplomatic effort as foolish when the alternative is orders of magnitude more foolish and costly. Diplomacy is good in some situations and not good in others.
Blame what you want... but you're hypocritical if you don't think the Right shouldn't also be blamed for using "rosy glasses".
As for "massive government programs", I think most of these programs should be either approved or disapproved by the popular vote.
It's everyone's money, so everyone should decide whether or not to spend it on X, Y, or Z.
I wasn't specifically addressing the Right. Believe me, they have their own issues with rosy glasses, the biggest one being that they tend to think they can legislate morality against popular sentiment. (Second biggest one being a blind faith in markets to solve all the world's problems.)
Diplomacy is not a bad thing, and you're right, we can't march into every country and demolish it in lieu of talking things out. But diplomacy among nations is only useful as long as the threat of force hangs in the background, and there is a credible history of using it when needed, and only when needed. At the point at which we become either all talk (like Europe) or all force (like the Soviet Union), we've failed badly. As you said, some situations, not others.
As for massive government programs, my general solution is just to go back to the damned Constitution as written. The spending power of the federal government was extremely limited for good reasons that too many people have forgotten. Even a popular vote wouldn't fix the issues we're having now, because of the simple rule of the Public Choice effect -- a small group of dedicated lobbyists can force an agenda detrimental to a much larger group by simple virtue of being more dedicated to offense than the victims are to defense. Changing major issues to popular-vote won't have much of an impact on that.
Cypren said: "a small group of dedicated lobbyists can force an agenda detrimental to a much larger group by simple virtue of being more dedicated to offense than the victims are to defense"
That's true. It happens all the time.
Mark: It sounds like you're becoming a conservative!
MW: Hardly. The machinations of politics and lobbying on Capitol Hill and the White House are independent from my own opinions on various issues.