The Iraqi Election
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, January 2, 2006 04:33
VIEWED: 5660
PAGE 2 of 3
The political situation in Iraq can be boiled down to this:
Everyone is out for themselves.
Under the old Saddam days nobody but those who sucked up to Saddam got sh*t. When anything went out from Saddam each level of authority took their cut off the top so that by the time it got down to the level of the local officals there wasn't too much left for anyone else.
People got by because they had enough to live on, and not much else. Education was stressed here simply because it looked good.
People have no drive to make themselves better by working hard because there was no rewards for doing this. I mean, if you busted your butt and did a good job for your boss he got he credit. HE reported to the next boss and so on. Any reward was filtered down by various levels of Saddams cronies and so you, the worker, got squat. Why work hard if that is the system.
Now come the Americans who say, "If you work hard you can do anything."
However, 70% of the old bosses are still in power because you can't remove everyone in a position of authority without a hella lot more troops. So, we work with what we have. The problems are that MOD (Ministry of Defense) gives out contracts based on who bribed them the most. Contracts for military vehicles maintenance for example, do not specify they type of work to be down, and so the contractors (mostly Lebanese and Jordanian companies) can charge extra for doing crap like replacing track on tanks.
Across the country we see this sort of thing continue. On our own base our Iraqi mess hall contractor is one of the worst. We've shut him down for health violations several times. He goes to Baghdad, pays off a general or two, and he's got MOD permission to open up again. Nothing is fixed and only money has changed hands.
Same in the political world. Al Sadr quit making noice because the Iraqi political groups paid him off. WHen he wants more money he'll call a march and then the Government will pay him some more.
The political situation here will not change because we are here. It will be more of a democracy than there was, by a long shot, but it will be the same group of money that runs things.
Of course, you can argue that that mirrors the US political picture anyway.
dutch- my views.
dutch
Old, cranky and set in my ways.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmmm. Dutch, the picture you paint is not pretty by any means. Having heard of scams by both Halliburton and local (Iraq-based) contractors, it seems to me that there is no honest place for the USA to spend its $$ except the USA military. And for some reason Rumsfeld and Cheney look reluctant to do that. I was under the impression that they have a notion of contracting out/ "privatizing" the military as much as possible.
I have another question for you: My understanding is that the Iraqi "insurgents" are actually made of several groups, including foreign fighters, dissatisfied Sunnis and al Sadrists. Just focusing on the Sunnis, do you have any insight as to WHAT they are fighting for? Is it American troop w/drawal? An "in" on the political (bribery) process? Destruction of the current Shiite-based government? Creation of an independent Sunni nation? Or something else? In other words- what achievement would make them stop?
Thanks for you insight. Just wanted to let you know that you're appreciated for your service to our country.
And BTW- MERRY XMAS and HAPPY HOLIDAYS to our troops in Iraq and elsewhere, and to all my friends and fellow debators here on FFF.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hmmm. Dutch, the picture you paint is not pretty by any means. Having heard of scams by both Halliburton and local (Iraq-based) contractors, it seems to me that there is no honest place for the USA to spend its $$ except the USA military. And for some reason Rumsfeld and Cheney look reluctant to do that. I was under the impression that they have a notion of contracting out/ "privatizing" the military as much as possible.
I have another question for you: My understanding is that the Iraqi "insurgents" are actually made of several groups, including foreign fighters, dissatisfied Sunnis and al Sadrists. Just focusing on the Sunnis, do you have any insight as to WHAT they are fighting for? Is it American troop w/drawal? An "in" on the political (bribery) process? Destruction of the current Shiite-based government? Creation of an independent Sunni nation? Or something else? In other words- what achievement would make them stop?
Thanks for you insight. Just wanted to let you know that you're appreciated for your service to our country.
And BTW- MERRY XMAS and HAPPY HOLIDAYS to our troops in Iraq and elsewhere, and to all my friends and fellow debators here on FFF.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
What do the Sunni want? They want Sadam back and to be in power again. I think they are still puzzled by the fact the Shi'a haven't rounded them all up and shot them.
That's pretty much what happened after the first Gulf War when we prompted the Shi'a to rise up in the south- and then abandoned them. Saddam's boys slaughtered anyone who raised their voices in protest.
What does Al Sadr want? A fundamentalist Islamic nation led by him. Simple.
As to contractors; The big American ones sub-contract everything down to the local jobbers. They in turn take their 10% off the top and whatever is left for the lower jobbers. It's all about money, don't ever kid yourself.
Insurgents. Most of them are Irha'bii- meaning foreign fighters. We caught two Egytians the other day. They come here to kill Americans. The local guys, mostly Sunni hardlines, want to kill us and the shi'a. Then there are the guys who get paid 20 dollars to set up an IED. They just are intersted in the money. Then there are the crooks, thieves, and various mafia wanna-bees. Doesn't matter who they are, we catch 80% of them. Most of the time we don't have enough on them to keep them locked up and so we turn them loose only to catch them again.
This is for Iraqi citizens only. Foreigners are a different matter. BUT- for 20 dollars I can get you legal Iraqi documents.
It's all about money, brother.
Iraq will never be just like the US. It will always be a flavor of Arabic culture. It is getting better, and will be a strong nation once the bugs are worked out.
Hell...I have hope for these people and I've been here 14 months, so if that doesn't tell you something, none of my ramblings will.
take care. be safe.
dutch
Old, cranky and set in my ways.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dutch508:
The political situation in Iraq can be boiled down to this:
Everyone is out for themselves.
Dutch.
First off, I read your blog, and it reads just like the letters I sent home from Vietnam 30+ years ago. I spent the last half of my tour with MACV teaching commo to the ARVN, and had a lot of the same stuff happen to me - scrounging for supplies(radio batteries and teletype ribbons mostly), asshat officers and guys who became real heroes just doing their jobs, good ARVN troops who had to deal with a corrupt command structure, etc. The Army is always the Army. If we could go out for a drink with a Roman Centurian I bet we'd all tell the same stories.
I always thought "Everyone is out for themselves" was a universal statement about politics. I'd expect it's really going to be working overtime in Iraq for the next few years just because there are so many folks who now have a chance to actually get out there and get some for themselves. The Shia and Kurds especially will be grabbing with both hands. from the descriptions of graft and palm-greasing, I wonder if what will fall out is an Iraqi form of the old "machine" politics of the 19th and early 20th centuries here in the USA. Tamanny Hall and the Daley reign in Chicago.
Glad to see that the Iraqi forces you're working with are standing up so well. That's a hopeful sign and info we don't really get from the media back here. Wonder why? Sorry to see some of your commanders think War College trumps 30 years of combat experience some of the Iraqi officers have. Nothing changes.
Keep your head down, and thanks.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer- Every time someone compares Iraq to Vietnam I get a little shiver down my spine. I was a little too young to distinctly remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident that wasn't, but I seem to recall a couple of successful elections in S Vietnam, and how success followed success right up to the fall of Saigon. It left me w/ a distrust of rosy White House news.
Dutch- I suspect you are a little younger than me and may also not directly remember aspects of Vietnam. You said things are getting better in Iraq. Unlike the administration and various talking heads you're speaking from a ground-level knowledge. I'd be interested to know what's going right in Iraq from your viewpoint.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- Every time someone compares Iraq to Vietnam I get a little shiver down my spine.
SignyM:
I was only comparing the never-changing experience of the soldier in a war zone, not the controlling factors of the wars themselves. I don't actually see that much similarity overall between Vietnam and Iraq from either political, international alignment, or war-fighting standpoints.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer- Point noted.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here is an interesting analysis:
Quote:
Parliament requires a 2/3s vote to elect a president, who must appoint a prime minister from the coalition with a simple majority. I figure 2/3s as about 184 votes. Allawi and the Sunni Arabs probably won't have more than 50 or 55 seats all told, leaving around 220. The Kurds will have about 50. If we subtract them, we come down to 170. Therefore, an Allawi/Sunni boycott would force the Shiites into another coalition with the Kurds if they are to form a government, and the Kurds can extract promises moderating Shiite fundamentalist policies before they agree. Since the Rejectionist Conference is alleging fraud in "northern cities," probably a euphemism for Kirkuk, it may in fact push the Kurds to ally with the Shiites again, since both have an interest in protecting their electoral victories in their provinces. On the other hand, if the Kurds and the Shiites can do business, then the Allawi/Sunni boycott would become meaningless and would simply deprive them of a vote in parliament.
Once a Shiite-dominated government is formed, the United Iraqi Alliance could simply vote down its rivals by simple majority, though it would risk a presidential veto if it failed to get a consensus. The president (who likely will be a Kurd and likely will be Jalal Talabani) and the two vice presidents (likely a Sunni Arab and a Shiite) each can exercise a separate veto over legislation for the next 4 years. If the Kurds and the Shiites can find a pliable and complaisant Sunni Arab to serve as vice president, though, they could just run roughshod over the Sunni Arab and secularist minority.
Generally speaking, in parliamentary systems boycotts usually backfire and a poor political strategy. If the Sunni Arabs and secularists were smart, they'd make themselves swing votes in parliament and use their economic power to lobby for policies they want, thus leveraging themselves into great influence. The Sunni Arabs and ex-Baathists were used, however, to ruling by the iron fist from above, and so are hardly canny parliamentarians, and don't know how to make themselves indispensable as a minority.
www.indybay.org/news/2005/12/1792738.php
Dutch
Quote:Then they are stupider than I thought... but this seems to be borne out by the way they are reacting to the election.
What do the Sunni want? They want Sadam back and to be in power again.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
More analysis
Quote:
WASHINGTON, Dec 26 (IPS) - The George W. Bush administration has embarked on a new effort to pressure Iraq's militant Shiite party leaders to give up their control over internal security affairs that could lead the Shiites to reconsider their reliance on U.S. troops.
The looming confrontation is the result of U.S. concerns about the takeover of the Interior Ministry by Shiites with close ties to Iran, as well as the impact of officially sanctioned sectarian violence against Sunnis who support the insurgency. The Shiite leaders, however, appear determined to hold onto the state's organs of repression as a guarantee against restoration of a Baathist regime.... If Abdul Aziz al-Hakin and other SCIRI leaders feel they have to choose between relying on U.S. military protection and the security of their regime, they are likely to choose the latter. They could counter U.S. pressures by warning they will demand a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops if the United States continues to interfere in such politically sensitive matters.
www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31574
I urge you to read the entire article, it provides a great deal of info.
So, it still boils down to what I said before
Quote:It appears that Talabani will become President. In the past he has resisted turning the Interior Ministry over to non-Shiites. However, he is now saying "make-nice" things about including Sunnis in government. But if we are made to w/draw w/o having obtained some protection and representation for the Sunnis thru Kurdish intervention, it will merely put the entire nation of Iraq into the hands of Iranian-linked Shiites. Lovely.
If they choose to disaffect the Sunnis (by appointing Shiites to all the important posts like Interior Ministry and Oil Ministry, or by pushing through religious laws alien to the Sunnis for example) then Iraq will head down the path towards civil war
At which point, splitting Iraq into three looks more and more attractive. I even heard speculation that should Iraq become completely dominated by Iran we might actually support al-Zarqawi. He prolly hates the Shias almost as much as he hates the USA. This would be terribly stupid and counter to our long-term goals, pretty much as stupid as supporting the Taliban to fight the Soviets, but it would be the kind of backward thinking that seems to have dominated our handling of the Mideast. I hope it doesn't come to that. In the meantime, I'm holding my breath waiting to see if the democratic process can be made to work in Iraq, otherwise we will have created a nightmare for ourselves.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Since I killed this thread, I thought I'd reanimate the corpse a bit. There is some hopeful news- or lack of news in any case. (What follows is a good example of what I've talked about before- looking for the ABSENCE of news.)
Why are we hearing so much about Baby Noor? YOu would think that the American media would be full of speculation about who will take power in Iraq, and what it means to our plans for the Mideast. But since our media is about independent as an appendix- the biological kind- they tend only to relay the "news" as given them by various government spokes-folks.
My guess is that we're running back and forth behind the scenes, trying to cobble together some sort of acceptable government. The fact that we are not vilifying the new government means that negotiations are still taking place, which means that they haven't outright failed.
I suspect that the administration is trying to banadage the situation together just enough to allow troop w/drawal just before the 2006 Congressional elections. My fear is that we will ram something together that will be acceptable to us, the IMF, World Bank, and the oil companies in the short run, but not to the Iraqis in the long-term. Of course, you would never see this in the US media.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME