Posted on 11/30/2004 10:56:08 AM PST by forty_years
In a petition to the Iraqi electoral commission, an array of Sunni and Kurdish political parties and individuals on November 26 called for a six-month delay in Iraq's national elections for two reasons: "To address the current security situation and to complete the necessary administrative, technical, and systematic arrangements."
The interim Iraqi government, with American support, quickly rejected this appeal and a spokesman for the Shiites insisted that the planned date of January 30, 2005, is "non-negotiable." But there are good reasons to postpone the vote until Iraq is truly ready for it, even if that is months or years away.
While President Bush's repeated call for a "free and democratic Iraq" is noble and correct, fixing Iraq's political system cannot be finished two months from now. Security, as the petitioners indicate, is one main reason. The logic of democratization is another.
Security: The first priority, before elections, is for the central government in Baghdad, on its own and independent of American and other coalition forces, to end the Sunni insurrection in Iraq and control the whole country. From this point of view, the American government made a good appointment in Prime Minister Allawi. From the time he took office in late June 2004, he has consistently shown what the Washington Post calls a "single-minded focus on issues of security."
Polling results find that Mr. Allawi's single-mindedness matches the mood of the Iraqi public. A June survey by Oxford Research International, for example, found that while Iraqis seek democracy in the long term (meaning in about five years), in the short term, they "want a strong man to sort out security, take control of the country, and keep the nation together." The poll has two important implications: Legitimacy derives primarily from control of Iraq and the body politic realistically understands that democracy will emerge only with time and by replacing a receding autocracy.
Unfortunately, this legitimacy is diminished by the coalition forces who carry the brunt of the fighting in Fallujah and elsewhere, sparing the Iraqi authorities from having to repress the mostly Sunni insurgency. What has become, in effect, a war between the American government and the Sunnis of Iraq has spawned an unhealthy situation. As Charles Krauthammer points out, Americans "must make it clear that we will be there to support that new government. But we also have to make it clear that we are not there to lead the fight indefinitely. It is their civil war."
The central government is far from achieving control over all of Iraq and doing so could take several years. Baghdad needs to focus on this existential problem, rather than worry too soon about the complex political issues facing a nascent democratic government of Iraq. Stability now, say I, and democracy later.
Democratization: Voting does not start the democratization process but culminates and ends it. Before Iraqis can benefit from meaningful elections, they need to leave behind the bad habits of Saddam Hussein's tyrannical rule and replace them with the benign ways of civil society. There are many steps ahead, such as creating voluntary institutions (political parties, lobby groups, etc.), entrenching the rule of law, establishing freedom of speech, protecting minority rights, securing property rights, and developing the notion of a loyal opposition. Elections can evolve with these good habits. Voting should start at the municipal level and gradually move up to the national level. Also, they should begin with legislatures and move to the executive branch.
These processes will take time, for it is no simple matter to bring Iraq's fractious population together or to throw off the totalitarian habits of past decades. The experience of countries such as Mexico, South Africa, Russia, China, and South Korea, shows that the road from tyranny to democracy is a long, bumpy one. This difficult undertaking cannot be rushed, much less carried out by foreigners. Iraqis alone can make these advances and they will do so with their own currency through a painful process of trial and error. Americans need to learn patience. This was the advice, in fact, that, days after September 11, the University of Chicago's Jean Bethke Elshtain gave to Mr. Bush, asking him "to teach patience to an impatient people." In Iraq, American impatience could have mortal consequences.
Editor's note: Readers may also be interested in reading America Out Of Iraq: Pipe Dream? and America Out Of Iraq: Pipes Dreaming?.
http://www.netwmd.com/articles/article805.html
Don't delay the vote. They can continue to vote and vote and vote for years to come. But don't delay the first vote - stay on schedule. Also stay with them until they have voted several times. Then stay until they are secure - just as we did in Japan and Germany.
How about the US troops being secure in occupation as they were in Japan and Germany? Time for Iraq to vote for their leaders and us to come home.
The troops got rid of Saddam and ended any WMD threats to us. Mission accomplished. Iraq should work out their own salvation [it that's the right word].
Its the same group of 'clerics'.. something about the 'Muslim Brotherhood' that are the 'Sunnis' that keep threatening to not vote (some of them originally fought the US, but later were convinced to take part in gov't... now they aren't happy with their slice, and want to put it off)
As for the Kurds... from what I hear, this attitude (delay the elections) is an EXTREME minority in the North. (its that part that was 'new')
In my opinion, it is difficult to refute the basic good common sense of this article, as I think any student of democracy would attest. However, it has apparently already been decided that it is a political necessity to hold national elections right away. I am not denying that there may be no choice about it, but I am lamenting it.
Our troops in Germany and Japan were not secure for several years after the war. "Insurgents" in Germany were active during the early post war years -- we captured and killed many insurgent Germans after the war.
In this Iraq case, the war is not really over and in this type war they will remain active for much longer. The Iraq security is secondary to ours; but, that demands we stay for a much longer period -- leaving early will be a great if not fatal National move -- sadly, it will cost more American lives, but necessary for the long term.
Sure would like to see that sourced. I spent a year right after the war in Europe occupation and neither saw or heard any of that.
http://www.command-post.org/oped/2_archives/007763.html
The above site will give you one example of the German Werewolves who were insurgents against the American occupation of Germany.
Using Google search, type in "German Werewolves".
My understanding is, that in addition to the German "collaborators" they assassinated, they also killed around 1,000 Americans after major hostilities ceased. Additionally, when caught, many of the Werewolves were executed on the spot by the Americans.
This was a very brief search on my part - I am sure you can find much more. Additionally, the History Channel has shown and described the activity of these post WWII German insurgents.
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
So?
There are myths about many things - but many elements of the Germany Insurgency are true - and to some degree one can relate it to the situation in Iraq -- there are always exceptions. Apparently, the Americans came down very hard on this German insurgency and it became ineffective very soon. However, there are reports elements and some activity surfaced as late as the 1960's.
The following is a site with links to more discussion of the post WWII German Insurgency.
http://www.command-post.org/oped/2_archives/007763.html
The Werewolf Principle
Lessons of History, Continued: From a review of "Werewolf! The History of the National Socialist Guerrilla Movement, 1944-1946" ;
What did the Werwolf do? They sniped. They mined roads. They poured sand into the gas tanks of jeeps. (Sugar was in short supply, no doubt.) They were especially feared for the "decapitation wires" they strung across roads. They poisoned food stocks and liquor. (The Russians had the biggest problem with this.) They committed arson, though perhaps less than they are credited with: every unexplained fire or explosion associated with a military installation tended to be blamed on the Werwolf. These activities slackened off within a few months of the capitulation on May 7, though incidents were reported as late as 1947. ...
Goebbels especially grasped the possibility that guerrilla war could be a political process as well as a military strategy. It was largely through his influence that the Werwolf assumed something of the aspect of a terrorist organization. Where it could, it tried to prevent individuals and communities from surrendering, and it assassinated civil officials who cooperated with the Allies. Few Germans welcomed these activities, but something else that Goebbels grasped was that terror might serve where popularity was absent. By his estimate, only 10% to 15% of the German population were potential supporters for a truly revolutionary movement. His goal was to use the Werwolf to activate that potential. With the help of the radical elite, the occupiers could be provoked into savage reprisals that would win over the mass of the people to Neo-Nazism, a term that came into use in April 1945.
And from an article on Minutemen of the Third Reich.(history of the Nazi Werewolf guerilla movement)
The Werewolves specialised in ambushes and sniping, and took the lives of many Allied and Soviet soldiers and officers -- perhaps even that of the first Soviet commandant of Berlin, General N.E. Berzarin, who was rumoured to have been waylaid in Charlottenburg during an incident in June 1945. Buildings housing Allied and Soviet staffs were favourite targets for Werewolf bombings; an explosion in the Bremen police headquarters, also in June 1945, killed five Americans and thirty-nine Germans. Techniques for harassing the occupiers were given widespread publicity through Werewolf leaflets and radio propaganda, and long after May 1945 the sabotage methods promoted by the Werewolves were still being used against the occupying powers.
Although the Werewolves originally limited themselves to guerrilla warfare with the invading armies, they soon began to undertake scorched-earth measures and vigilante actions against German `collaborators' or `defeatists'. They damaged Germany's economic infrastructure, already battered by Allied bombing and ground fighting, and tried to prevent anything of value from falling into enemy hands. Attempts to blow up factories, power plants or waterworks occasionally provoked melees between Werewolves and desperate German workers trying to save the physical basis of their employment, particularly in the Ruhr and Upper Silesia.
Several sprees of vandalism through stocks of art and antiques, stored by the Berlin Museum in a flak tower at Friedrichshain, caused millions of dollars worth of damage and cultural losses of inestimable value. In addition, vigilante attacks caused the deaths of a number of small-town mayors and, in late March 1945, a Werewolf paratroop squad assassinated the Lord Mayor of Aachen, Dr Franz Oppenhoff, probably the most prominent German statesman to have emerged in the occupied fringes over the winter of 1944-45.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
