Michael J. Totten: Iraqi Election Results

February 14, 2005

Iraqi Election Results

I don't know about you, but I'm delighted -- and, I admit, pleasantly surprised -- by the results of the Iraqi election as announced this weekend.

In short, it appears that the Shiite parties (the United Iraqi Alliance) have won the expected majority, but only, amazingly, by a hair with 48 percent of the vote. This means they lack the two thirds majority they'd have needed to unilaterally (if you can apply that word to the concept of a two thirds majority) install a government of their choice. The Kurdish parties (the Kurdistan Alliance) won an amazing 28% of the vote, and Allawi's Iraqi List got a little under 14%. What does this very likely mean? The answer deserves its own paragraph:

Democracy not theocracy!

Even if, like me, you were cautiously optimistic that Sistani was not blowing sunshine up our collective asses about Iraqi Shiites having no intention of installing an Iran-style theocracy, I don't mind at all that they're going to have to build partnerships with Kurds, secular leaders and, yes, Sunnis in order to put together a government and a constitution. As we say in my country: Yee haw!

Here's the New York Times' account of the results. Notice the opening phrase: "A broad Shiite alliance led by two Iran-backed religious parties..." They almost seem to be saying that you need only bother reading any further if you really have nothing better to do with your day. But the article delivers the goods in spite of its first line.

See also this coverage by Jeff Weintraub at Normblog. (I'm assuming that Jeff's account of the Shiite UIA not getting a majority is now out of date. The NYT explains that they squeezed by with their majority because of a complex system whereby votes were weighted after being tallied. Saved by the bell curve, I guess.) Here's Jeff's conclusion:

"Successfully holding the election was itself a remarkable triumph (under the circumstances); and the results give the Iraqis just about the best possible chance they could have gotten to put together a decently acceptable political future for the country - if they don't blow it, of course."

And here's a happy Kurdish man, whose gesture will make Britons laugh immediately and Americans like me laugh a few seconds later (via Hak, who I've come to count on for inspiring pictures of Iraqis gesturing with their fingers):

UPDATE: A commenter worries, reasonably, about the low Sunni voter turnout. I had meant to include in this post my other perception, namely that the slim Shiite margin of majority will make it clear to Sunni voters how much more powerful their votes would have been and indeed will be in the Spring. I can think of no better way to demonstrate how participating in the new democracy will benefit Sunnis. They'll come to the polls next time, don't you think?

UPDATE: Early readers of this post who may now be re-reading it might have noticed an edit up above regarding things being blown places or not by Sistani. I realized that I meant sunshine, not smoke. We can't afford to be imprecise in these matters.

Posted by Jeremy Brown at February 14, 2005 07:47 AM

Comments

Iraqi Election Results a Quagmire of Compromise Say Experts

Posted by: dougf at February 14, 2005 08:05 AM

_I don't mind at all that they're going to have to build partnerships with Kurds, secular leaders and, yes, Sunnis in order to put together a government and a constitution. _

Actually, they don't. A Sistani-Kurdish alliance will do, I think. More likely though is a 'grand alliance', at least for now. Though that is obviously not sustainable in the long term.

One note of caution: it will have to be hoped that Sunnis turn out to vote next time or trouble is brewing...The special circumstances of this election may just allow them to get away with Sunni (self-)disenfranchisement for now.

Posted by: Jarndyce at February 14, 2005 08:07 AM

Obviously a lot depends on the Iraqis themselves. We can't force the groups to get along, although we can try to help. But everything looks as good as it could so far, and I'm going to trust them.

Posted by: John Thacker at February 14, 2005 08:25 AM

The Today's Headlines service that the New York Times is a hoot. The main story on Iraq has this description:

"The overall votes appeared to have been spread widely enough to assure that power will have to be broadly shared."

Hmm, that sounds like good news. But the other Iraq story has a negative spin:

"The razor-thin margin apparently captured by the Shiite alliance seems almost certain to enshrine a weak government that will be unable to push through sweeping changes."

Of course, depending on what the "sweeping changes" would be, that may be positive news, not negative. But had shiites gained more than a razor-thin majority and with it the power to make "sweeping changes", rest assured the NYTimes would have spun that as bad news too! It's just fun to see how the MSM has to insert their otherwise hidden biases into even the good news, no matter what.

Posted by: Carlos at February 14, 2005 08:37 AM

I think it would be a good idea if Iraqi Shiites and Kurds were in the U.S. as observers during the 2006 mid-term elections. They could provide some perspective when complaints arise about voting irregularities, voter intimidation, long lines into polling places, etc.

Posted by: Zacek at February 14, 2005 09:14 AM

I came to the same conclusion. (But check out how Wapo spun the results, with the help of our nemesis Juan Cole.)

Posted by: Yehudit at February 14, 2005 11:15 AM

But check out how Wapo spun the results, with the help of our nemesis Juan Cole.

Yehudit,

Juancole can serve a very useful purpose too. Given his track record to date, just take anything he says and then conclude the exact opposite. You're sure to be right that way.

Posted by: Carlos at February 14, 2005 11:49 AM

If there is an alliance between the UIA and the Kurdistan Alliance, as you suggest and as seems likely, that will be an interesting development. Both parties are looked on favorably by the Iranian government, and the leaders of both parties lived in Iran for periods of time. I'd say that the next Iraqi government will most likely be on pretty friendly terms with their neighbor.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at February 14, 2005 12:47 PM

Carlos: Juancole can serve a very useful purpose too. Given his track record to date, just take anything he says and then conclude the exact opposite. You're sure to be right that way.

You obviously don't read Cole's website. He's usually right. Take a read through his archives sometime.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at February 14, 2005 12:52 PM

Well, my fingers are crossed.

I've always been confident that the Shiites and the Kurds are for Democracy. The question is (and really always has been) how the Sunni will react. Currently the Sunni reaction seems to be well, err, violent.

While any good news from Iraq is good news, this news isn't particularly surprising. In six months we'll probably have a much better feel for the future, which in my estimation will be:

A) The Sunnis come to the table, vote and join in the fun of democracy.

B) The Sunni Insurrection blossoms into a full-fledged Civil War.

I guess we should feel like the tutor who had three students. The Kurds were getting B's in their ideology, The Shiites were getting C's and the Sunni's were failing class and smoking joints in the bathroom.

The Kurds and Shiites got straight A's on their report card and the Sunni's shot the teacher and a couple classmates.

Well, as Meatloaf says, Two outta three ain't bad.

Ratatosk

Posted by: Ratatosk at February 14, 2005 12:53 PM

double,

what exactly has Cole EVER been right about? Certainly not about the Iraqi elections. He predicted disaster.

And his comment that "(the Iraqi election) is not a model for anything, and would not willingly be imitated by anyone else in the region. The 1997 elections in Iran were much more democratic..." was a TOTAL JOKE.

He has really disqualified himself from being taken seriously. He's constantly reminding us he's an "arabist" and that he "speaks arabic." Who cares Juan, try being right for once.

Posted by: Carlos at February 14, 2005 01:11 PM

I just wish NeoDude would show up and try to argue about the semantics of the word 'democracy'. That would be wonderful.

In other news, congrats Iraqis. Things keep looking better.

Posted by: Court at February 14, 2005 01:14 PM

The kicker, as far as successful transition to democracy goes, is for enough of the forming Iraqi government to take the concept of principled constitutional rule seriously enough to make it work for enough of their citizens to believe in it.

We are reading in our media that the election results herald the rise of an Iranian - style theocracy at worst, or at least an Iranian ally. What the Sunnis are being sold by the Baath holdouts and the other associated thugs is that the traditional Arab cycle is going to play out - they didn't simply lose power, now they will be persecuted by the victor.

In fairness, that's a reasonable assumption on their part if you look at the history of the region. The fact that if they make motions, or even noises, to disagree it may cost them their lives - at the hands of the terrorists.

Democracy only works when a majority wants it bad enough. Oh, leaders and foundation documents are important to - but the key is a population that lives the rules out of self interest, not compulsion.

If thirty years of Saddam isn't enough motivation to sieze this chance, I don't know what it will take.

Posted by: TmjUtah at February 14, 2005 01:54 PM

The important point I left out of my above post was this:

The Sunnis that want to will be able to participate after we kill enough of the terrorists - but they must treated equally under what laws do evolve in order for them to accept democracy as in their interest. If they get past that hump, the insurgency is dead.

Posted by: TmjUtah at February 14, 2005 01:57 PM

TmjUtah, interesting that you use the phrase "past that hump." My fervent hope is that Iraq is over the tipping point where accepting a despot just isn't an option for most people.

There are signs that Iraq is past that tipping point. ("The purple finger having writ, moves on.")

If I prayed, I pray this is true.

Posted by: Mark Poling at February 14, 2005 02:50 PM

These experts don't seem to realize that the average iraqi and the average iranian have very very little in common. They are ethnically different, speak different languages, and the iraqi shias CHOSE SADDAM OVER THE AYOTOLLAHS during the 8 year war.

Posted by: Raymond at February 14, 2005 03:29 PM

"He's usually right. Take a read through his archives sometime."

Some of the fiskings of Cole have noticed that he often contradicts himself.

Posted by: Yehudit at February 14, 2005 03:51 PM

"If they get past that hump, the insurgency is dead."

There were some areas where the Sunnis wanted to vote and the insurgents terrorized them out of it. My guess is that they are not going to retain any residual fondness for the insurgents now.

Posted by: Yehudit at February 14, 2005 03:53 PM

Mark Polling -

They may well be; the numbers are very heartening. The whipsaw we ride for information makes it so hard to tell (with any precision) what is really going on that I have to tamp down my habitual irrepressible optimism sometimes.

It's results that will bear the bell. I am confident that we are ahead of my personal mid-case scenario and that IF STATE ISN'T ALLOWED to screw up our part of the lift, Iraq and us are going places.

Michael Ledeen wrote an excellent article on the subject for NRO. It was Required Reading for today, on my blog.

Posted by: TmjUtah at February 14, 2005 05:39 PM

The raw figures:

UIA, the main Shiite list: 47.6 per cent
PUK/KDP Kurdish coalition: 25.4 per cent
Allawi's list: 13.6 per cent.

UIA manifesto:

"a timetable for the withdrawal of the multinational forces from Iraq."

"Adopting a social security system under which the state guarantees a job for every fit Iraqi...and offers facilities to citizens to build homes."

"write off Iraq's debts, cancel reparations and use the oil wealth for economic development projects."

But none of that, including withdrawal of the US, will happen. Because it will mean challenging the already locked in policies imposed by Paul Bremer and confirmed by the IMF.

Even in the UK, for example, where people complain about how close the parties are, the Labour govt has the power to vary tax rates, implement the minimum wage or the New Deal, and implement various other measures.

In Iraq, forget it. What sort of democracy is it when a party gets nearly 50% of the vote, it has no chance of implementing any of its key policies?

This democracy will be a sham.

Posted by: Benjamin at February 14, 2005 07:27 PM

Challenge of the Century?
Steve Gilliard started a White Feather campaign to get the National Review's Jonah Goldberg to hit boot camp in preparation for combat duty in Iraq (the image alone of Goldberg running an obstacle course or crawling in mud under barbed wire and live M-60 tracer rounds is worth the effort -- UPDATE: Steve G's posted Goldberg's reaction, a beaut). I think the same should be done to Michael J. Totten. Here's a guy of military age who feels no shame in drunkenly lecturing Iraqi exiles on how they should conduct their internal affairs, who calls for political assassinations (that post aged well, eh Tots?), and who generally makes war whoops from the safety of his stateside desk. But at a time when the likes of Donna Cote face life-changing choices and the possibility of death overseas, Tots, tired from urging others to die and kill, has taken a vacation in Puerto Rico.

[EDITORIAL DELETION: I, Jeremy Brown, have removed the portion of this outrageous comment that had incited people to harass Michael via email.]

posted by Dennis Perrin @ 1:32 PM
http://redstateson.blogspot.com/2005/02/guns-for-tots.html

Posted by: akex c at February 14, 2005 07:35 PM

In Iraq, forget it. What sort of democracy is it when a party gets nearly 50% of the vote, it has no chance of implementing any of its key policies?

This democracy will be a sham.
**************************************************
One where its political opponents got MORE than 50% of the vote good buddy.

Somebody look up the definition of majority please I think we have some real loose use of terminology here.

Less than 50% of the vote never guarantees you anything.

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at February 14, 2005 07:36 PM

Is it just me, or have some people really taken the K train right off the track and over the cliff?

I mean, two Christmases in a year with the ascent of Deanie baby to the DNC is well and good - but we're talking real mouth foaming stuff now.

Posted by: TmjUtah at February 14, 2005 08:11 PM

Dan Kauffman

Less than 50% of the vote never guarantees you anything

Apart from in US elections and UK elections, and in many elections worldwide.

Add the fact that at least some of the UIA programme is shared by other parties so easily making over 50% of the vote for some shared policies.

So one would expect, at any rate, that at least some of the planks of the manifesto will be carried out.

But none of it will. So the democracy is a sham.

Name me a democracy that can't alter tax rates.

Posted by: Benjamin at February 14, 2005 08:12 PM

Hmmm.

Listen to a drunken MJT talk about the rise of Democracy in the mideast after appearing on CSPAN with Iraqis working to make it happen and Hitch, or listen to a bunch of stoners wearing giant puppet heads calling the President of the United States Hitler.

I guess I'll have to think on that one for a bit.

Posted by: TmjUtah at February 14, 2005 08:15 PM

I'd rather listen to Ann Coulter make a fool of herself on Canadian TV telling Canadians that they fought in Vietnam...
Now, that iS funny.

Posted by: rtr at February 14, 2005 08:19 PM

And I guess parliamentary democracy isn't really democracy either - not if an election is a "sham" if one party fails of fifty percent plus one majority?

Those silly things like constitutions and coalitions and principled compromises? Shams.

It's amazing what you learn on blogs. Who'da thunk it?

I gotta take off. Laughing too hard here.

Posted by: TmjUtah at February 14, 2005 08:20 PM

rtr -

You mean these guys?

We all laugh at different things and for different reasons, I guess.

Posted by: TmjUtah at February 14, 2005 08:24 PM

And I guess parliamentary democracy isn't really democracy either - not if an election is a "sham" if one party fails of fifty percent plus one majority?

That's not what I am saying. What I am saying is democracy is sham when the programmes these parties stand on, the policies they advocate, have no chance of being implemented after the election.

Name a democracy that can't alter tax rates.

Posted by: Benjamin at February 14, 2005 08:27 PM

That's some crystal ball you've got there.

Here I am all concerned that we kill enough of the terrorists within Iraq so that the entire country can benefit from self-government and we can get ready for the next stages in the war, and you have declared the effort DOA on tax policy.

Amazing.

Posted by: TmjUtah at February 14, 2005 08:35 PM

Benjamin: "...the programmes these parties stand on, the policies they advocate, have no chance of being implemented after the election."

And the trains might not run on time.

Posted by: Jeremy Brown at February 14, 2005 09:14 PM

TmjUtah

Name me a democracy that can't alter tax rates.

Posted by: Benjamin at February 14, 2005 10:07 PM

This democracy will be a sham.

You wish.

No, really. You do.

You crave it in your very bones.

Posted by: Carlos at February 14, 2005 10:07 PM

Carlos

I don't wish it. I just regard it as inevitable.

Name me a democracy that can't alter tax rates.

Posted by: Benjamin at February 14, 2005 10:25 PM

Wierd nonsequiter insinuation about Iraq's government not being able to set tax rates repeated ad-nausium...

I always thought Benjamin was annoying but it never occured to me that he might be unbalanced or retarded before.

Posted by: Joshua Scholar at February 15, 2005 12:02 AM

Joshua Scholar

FACT: A 15% flat tax was imposed on Iraq by the unelected occupational authorities and an unelected international body prior to the election.

FACT: It's part of a wide economic package agreed prior to the election that binds all Iraqi govts (elected or not) to that economic and social package for years to come. The views of Iraqis, expressed in the election, are therefore irrelevant.

FACT: This tax will remain, unchanged, despite this election and the expressed views of Iraqis. It has already been agreed.

So I ask again:

Name me a democracy that can't alter tax rates.

Posted by: Benjamin at February 15, 2005 12:36 AM

>Name me a democracy that can't alter tax rates.

Um..... Iraq?

Posted by: Al Superczynski at February 15, 2005 12:58 AM

Al superczynski

Excellent. Let's repackage it and call it New Democracy!

The power to vote for parties that issue meaningless manifestos that have a snow ball's chance in hell of getting implemented, because the countries actual policies have been set months or years before by unelected bodies.

Posted by: Benjamin at February 15, 2005 01:05 AM

If thirty years of Saddam isn't enough motivation to sieze this chance, I don't know what it will take.

Here's hoping they do -- and that we don't let the door hit us on our asses on the way out.

Posted by: Kimmitt at February 15, 2005 01:18 AM

we don't let the door hit us on our asses on the way out.

The US won't be leaving for years and years - hence the permanent bases and massive embassy.

Posted by: Benjamin at February 15, 2005 01:50 AM

Benjamin,

First, can you provide a link to that info about the tax-that-will-not-change-for-years-to-come? Thanks.

Second, and maybe I'm being daft here, but a 15% tax seems pretty bloody low. If I was an Iraqi launching myself into the new economy (which, according to the IMF, is already out-performing all its Arab neighbours), I'd be happy to know tax wasn't going to go up for 'years to come'.

Hell, I pay way more tax than that, and GST as well. And I earn...not much!

Kimmitt,

I agree. Here's hoping. And here's hoping our arses - sorry, asses - are agile enough to outrun that door.

Posted by: Fish at February 15, 2005 02:38 AM

What a ridiculous comment about taxes.

Firstly, Iraq's government gets virtually all its income from oil, which is nationalised and will stay nationalised. Taxes are therefore virtually irrelevant.

Secondly, of course, Iraq's government can change taxes, if they so wish, even if the rate has little impact on their finances (unlike for example the heavy subsidies for petrol, Greens take note in Iraq petrol is really subsidised, in the US there is a tax, explaing the order of magnitude differences in price).

Posted by: Heiko Gerhauser at February 15, 2005 05:46 AM

Benjamin - So this is what the left is reduced to – first they screamed about the BushHitler’s imperialist war, then they screamed about the 500,000 Iraqi children killed by Margaret Albright and the “US” oil for food program, then they then they screamed about the fact that our soldiers were picking on Michael Moore’s insurgent minutemen..

..now you’re whining about the tax rates. What’s next, garbage collection? If the recycling trucks don’t show up on Wednesdays, this can’t be a real democracy. It’s a sham.

Posted by: mary at February 15, 2005 06:09 AM

Is it just me, or have some people really taken the K train right off the track and over the cliff?--TMJ Utah

It is not just you.I find that following the rule of 'not saying anything unless you have something to good to say'has cut down my need to respond to the lunacy.
I have never so seen so many DEAD souls arrive at the same place at the same time.I especially appreciated the profound criticism of our host as posted by alex k,but long-time favourite(post-modern)Benjamin,and of course kimmett,also put in a strong showing.
Words simply are inadequate to properly describe the contributions of these 'heirs to Western thought'.

Posted by: dougf at February 15, 2005 06:26 AM

"Name me a democracy that can't alter tax rates."

Ummm. France.

Do EU imposed economic limitations mean that European democracy is dead?

----------
You're completely wrong about the Iraqi's ability to alter their tax laws.

We are still in a transitional period from occupation. This time next year when Iraqi leaders have been elected in accordance with the Iraqi written Constitution they will have complete authority to withdraw from prior treaties and agreements. This includes Bremer's tax policies.

Whether they choose to do so (thereby foregoing western ecnomic aid) remains to be seen but there is little doubt that they will have the authority to do so.

Posted by: charons_oar at February 15, 2005 06:38 AM

Name me a democracy that can't alter tax rates.

Just look to any parliamentary democracy when a coalition falls. They form a new coalition, then they raise taxes again.

Israel is a pretty good example of that. Every 2-3, they form a new coalition. Before it's formed, they can't raise taxes.

In Iraq, they haven't formed a coalition yet. It's that simple. This is a non-issue.

But it's very telling that you Libs would look to "raising taxes" as the sign of a healthy "democracy."

Posted by: Carlos at February 15, 2005 06:40 AM

akex c - I just read about Donna Cote’s story – that poor woman, being called up for military service when she has two kids.

Just wondering, did Donna Cote authorize the use of her name and her story in this campaign? Does she know that this Dennis Perrin is hiding behind her skirts to take random potshots at people? Because, as far as I know, most military personnel are offended when anti-war weasels use their names in these ersatz “chickenhawk” arguments

Are anti-war weasels willing to accept the blood that is on their hands when they campaign to keep a mass-murdering dictator in power in the name of “peace”? I didn’t think so. .

This “White Feather” campaign looks like an unauthorized mass mailing (ie. spam) Somebody went to jail for nine years for a spam campaign. It seems that, if the return address and the IP address of a mass-mail campaign are not genuine, this is a violation of certain laws.

Akex-c – is that your real email address and IP? If not, could you provide them? Thanks.

Posted by: mary at February 15, 2005 06:49 AM

mothers of young children should do the fighting and dying for him while he lounges in Puerto Rican sand.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but she wasn't drafted, if you get my meaning.

Women with small children, and Liberals, shouldn't be joining the military at all.

Posted by: Carlos at February 15, 2005 07:03 AM

Pro-war writer Johann Hari is the source for the info on tax rates and economic polcy. http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=535

Tax rates cannot be altered, nor can the privatisations that were set in motion before the election, without democratic consent.

Someone mentioned oil.

Well, the oil WILL be privatized, as is the US demand. The Iraqi finance minister has already floated the idea and it will go ahead irrespective of the Iraqi people's wishes.

Posted by: Benjamin at February 15, 2005 07:14 AM

Carlos

But it's very telling that you Libs would look to "raising taxes" as the sign of a healthy "democracy."

I never mentioned raising tax rates. My point is tax rates cannot be altered. They were decided before the election.

Posted by: Benjamin at February 15, 2005 07:18 AM

Benjamin,

do you consider parliamentary democracies that are in the process of forming coalitions to be "sham" democracies?

I'd appreciate a simple answer to a simple question (and I'll recognize a dodge if you offer one).

Or maybe you'd rather quit this line of discussion before you make a further fool of yourself.

and ps., you do crave failure in Iraq. How else to explain your insistence on failure.

Posted by: Carlos at February 15, 2005 07:26 AM

That source doesn't seem very "neutral" to me.

Iraqi oil will stay nationalised, just like Kuwaiti oil stayed nationalised.

All that venting about "neo-liberalism" being imposed on Iraq seems to me to be rather far removed from what's actually going on, eg subsidies have been maintained, while salaries in the public sector have been raised massively.

Posted by: Heiko Gerhauser at February 15, 2005 07:37 AM

Any coalition in Iraq is irrelevant. They will not have power to alter tax rates or halt privatizations, or do anything apart from what the Americans have already laid out before the election.

And the oil WILL be privatized.

Posted by: Benjamin at February 15, 2005 07:38 AM

Heiko Gerhauser

Iraqi oil will stay nationalised

Not according to the Iraqi finance minister. I would rather trust him over you.

Posted by: Benjamin at February 15, 2005 07:41 AM

There has been some confusion regarding the abilility of the Iraqi National Assembly to levy taxes. They currently do not have the ability to levy such, and without amending the Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period, would not have the ability to levey such in the future under most readings of the document. This is not to say, however, that other bodies lack such authority.

The powers allowed the Iraqi National Assembly, which was just elected, are spelled out in the Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period. This document details the powers of the INA, as follows:

The Iraqi Transitional Government shall have exclusive competence in the following matters:

(A) Formulating foreign policy and diplomatic representation; negotiating, signing, and ratifying international treaties and agreements; formulating foreign economic and trade policy and sovereign debt policies;

(B) Formulating and executing national security policy, including creating and maintaining armed forces to secure, protect, and guarantee the security of the country’s borders and to defend Iraq;

© Formulating fiscal policy, issuing currency, regulating customs, regulating commercial policy across regional and governorate boundaries in Iraq, drawing up the national budget of the State, formulating monetary policy, and establishing and administering a central bank;

(D) Regulating weights and measures and formulating a general policy on wages;

(E) Managing the natural resources of Iraq, which belongs to all the people of all the regions and governorates of Iraq, in consultation with the governments of the regions and the administrations of the governorates, and distributing the revenues resulting from their sale through the national budget in an equitable manner proportional to the distribution of population throughout the country, and with due regard for areas that were unjustly deprived of these revenues by the previous regime, for dealing with their situations in a positive way, for their needs, and for the degree of development of the different areas of the country;

(F) Regulating Iraqi citizenship, immigration, and asylum; and

(G) Regulating telecommunications policy.

There are, however, three mentions of taxation in the document:

Article 18: There shall be no taxation or fee except by law.
Article 54: The Kurdistan Regional Government ... will have the right to impose taxes and fees within the Kurdistan region.
Article 56: The Governorate Councils ... shall also have the authority to increase their revenues independently by imposing taxes and fees... The Qada’ and Nahiya councils and other relevant councils shall assist in ... collecting and retaining local revenues, taxes, and fees.

Posted by: FactCheck at February 15, 2005 07:53 AM

They will not have power to alter (raise) tax rates or halt privatizations

LOL!

In other words it won't be a commie utopia.

Your concerns are duly noted.

Posted by: Carlos at February 15, 2005 08:08 AM

Benjamin: "They will not have power to alter tax rates or halt privatizations, or do anything apart from what the Americans have already laid out before the election."

You're saying that either the newly elected Iraqi government will be too intimidated by American power to make their own superseding laws (re: taxes or anything else) or they will and the U.S. will take them down the same way the Baathists were taken down. I can't see how you're suggesting anything other than these two scenarios, unless you can imagine that every person who was just elected to the National Assembly is an agent of the U.S. government.

So we have three possible justifications for Benjamin's asssertions. Each one is sillier than the previous one.

And this next point may go beyond what Benjamin is saying here, but how is it that people can claim that the Shiite Majority is a surrogate for the Iranian Mullahs while out the other side of their mouths they say Iraq is now governed by a puppet democracy installed by the U.S.? Why would the U.S. want to expand the anti-American Iranian theocracy to Iraq? Is this supposed to be some sort of geopolitical Munchausen syndrome? I'd really like to understand that better.

Posted by: Jeremy Brown at February 15, 2005 08:52 AM

So far, over 1,200 US troops have died and over 10,000 more have been wounded in a foolish attempt to impose Western-style democracy in an area of the world where it is not valued.

Yes, we've set up elections (literally at the point of bayonets) expecting liberal democracy. Unfortunately the Iraqis seem to have chosen not Jeffersonian democrats, but Shiite religious parties.

And if things follow their normal course in the Middle East, a form of theocracy using Sharia has the basis of law will surely follow. Coupled of course, by dictatorial rule by clerics.

The US/UK can stop this process, but only if the alliance is willing to stick around Iraq for the next fifty to 100 years.

Colonialism, anyone?

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at February 15, 2005 10:12 AM

So far, over 1,200 US troops have died and over 10,000 more have been wounded in a foolish attempt to impose Western-style democracy in an area of the world where it is not valued.

Carl,

omg, yawn.

Seek therapy.

Posted by: Carlos at February 15, 2005 10:30 AM

... democracy in an area of the world where it is not valued.

Yeah, 8+ million people only risk their lives defying brutal terrorist murderers for things they don't care about.

/sarcasm

Posted by: Achillea at February 15, 2005 10:51 AM

Jeremey, I can explain that. But it takes some assumptions you might not accept.

First, if the USA manipulates the rules or the assemblymen or adjusts the membership of the assembly with things like targeted assassination, so the new government is not allowed to do anything we don't want it to, that's clearly a puppet government. It's still an open question how much of that sort of thing we'd do. There's no proof we'd manipulate them at all. But if we did then it wouldn't matter a whole lot what they wanted or what they did, except that they'd probably tell the other iraqis that it's a puppet government and the general dissatisfaction with us would get worse.

Second, if we don't restrain them the iraqis might wind up with an islamic government that was considerably friendlier to iran than to us. I think something that could fit those words is likely but it doesn't have to be such a bad thing. At a minimum Sistani has been saying all along that he doesn't want a government like iran. In iran the mullahs have a direct veto on government actions. Whatever the government does, they're responsible for, they specifically allowed it. Sistani wants to have islamic representatives in a democracy and the mullahs may occasionally say what they want and the government will do it out of their respect for islam and their fear of islamic voters. The mullahs will not be responsible for the government at all. They say what they want and it's up to the government to do it; when the government fails to achieve its goals that isn't their fault.

I don't see that what Sistani says he wants is worse than what we have here. Sistani doesn't want legislation that would cause problems for his shias any more than Falwell wants legislation here that would cause trouble for baptists. Neither of them controls the government, they'll just influence those legislators who're open to influence. But people who want to rage about islamofascists will say that an islamic-influenced government in iraq is worse than a christian-influenced government here.

Similarly with the stuff about iran. Iran has 3 times the population and for awhile it will be a much richer country with nukes. Compare canada and the USA. Canadians naturally prefer friendly relations with the USA. It wouldn't be surprising to find influential canadians and government leaderse who've lived in the USA, been educated here or worked here etc. Some of them have married americans. They certainly don't want relations to sour too much. And they tend to be christians as much as us. On the other hand they don't want to buy into our various nutsy international and domestic ventures, and they don't want a fundamentalist-christian-dominated government. They're friendly but they go their own way. I'm pretty sure iraq will be that way with iran, like canada with the USA except the ethnic differences are larger. The analogy would be better if canada was 85% french.

Anyway, it isn't a contradiction that people would be concerned both about an american puppet government and an islamic iran-influenced government. It isn't both-and, it's either-or. If you believe that a shia-dominated government is bad, and that it's where they're heading, either we get that bad result or we stop them by deception or main force and get the other bad result.

Posted by: J Thomas at February 15, 2005 11:40 AM

Carl, it doesn't have to be that bad.

Lots of countries have suffered from governments that have no good way to hand over power. So they get periodic coups and revolutions etc, and they suffer for it. Democracy is better. There's some attempt to pay attention to what voters want, and the handovers are mostly peaceful. We've had only one major civil war in over 200 years -- and that's one of the reasons we're so rich.

I think iraqis will do their best to avoid another dictator. After the war they compared notes about how many people they lost to Saddam's fears of revolt. They want democracy. Whether it's also a theocracy isn't as big a problem for them as it is for us. And it's no skin off my back if they get sharia law, so long as I don't visit there.

There's no guarantee that their clerics will be worse than our clerics. They might be better.

Let's wait and see. I say, give it 3 months to see how well the insurgents are doing, and then either leave or give it another 3 months.

Posted by: J Thomas at February 15, 2005 11:50 AM

Phew. Been busy so missed out a bit. Let me throw in my 2 cents though :

From what I see the election resulted in a fairly balanced outcome between secularists and moderate clergy, with some fundamentalist Islamists bringing up the rear. I think it's important that the Iraqi's feel Islam is represented at the table to some degree, but not in a way that will present a risk to their longterm political freedoms. Unless Al-Sistani suddenly goes all fundamentalist on us, I don't see any chance of an Islamic government coming out of this. I do see Islamic influence in the Iraqi constitution though, but it will be moderate.

See here for some good info as well :

http://www.patrickruffini.com/archives/2005/02/the_iraqi_elect.php

Anyway, will look at this in some more detail later but my initial impression is "so far so good".

Posted by: MisterPundit at February 15, 2005 12:06 PM

Jeezus, just read the comments and it looks like the term "quagmire" is back in vogue again on the far left, and so too apparently "raising taxes". First of all, I'll have to look into the "raising taxes" claim to see if (a) it's true, and (b) if it is, how it relates to the bigger picture, and © if it's a temporary measure on which there is a moratorium.

Transitional governments ALWAYS have to implement rules on which there is a moratorium of some kind. This is not done to undermine democracy, but to guarantee it's long-term survival.

Posted by: MisterPundit at February 15, 2005 12:26 PM

Overheard in the wardroom of the ship that returned the defeated Lord Cornwallis, who lost to Washington at Yorktown:

"Damned bad luck, m'lord. Would you please pass the sherry?"

"It's only a momentary situation, Montague. That damned rabble in homespun has no tax system, and they will fall because of it!"

*************************************

U.S.S. Missouri, 2 September, 1945:

"Well, General MacArthur, I guess you want us to deploy our occupation troops to the remaining arsenals and military installations across Japan, and hunt down the war criminals, now that the Japanese have formally surrendered?"

"Damn you man, NO! Send in the IRS team right now. This victory could well slip through our grasp if we don't get a working tax system up and running before April."

Captain's Quarters has a post up concerning Sunni <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1414688,00.html"second thoughts about that voting thing.

It's a good post. The Guardian article is worth reading all the way through, too.

Posted by: TmjUtah at February 15, 2005 04:13 PM

Arrrgh.

PIMF.

Here's the Guardian link.

Oh, and as for this:

"So far, over 1,200 US troops have died and over 10,000 more have been wounded in a foolish attempt to impose Western-style democracy in an area of the world where it is not valued."

I'll just thank the commentor for a fine example of the "bigotry of low expectations".

If democratization is not an effective remedy for a culture/religion that generates state supported terror and if in your estimation the damned wogs (/sarcasm) just aren't capable of "getting" it (that freedom thing), I guess you know what the remaining option for ending the threat is, right?

There is no acceptable level of state supported terror. None. And we have the tools to make that stick.

We are trying democratization because if it works for us, it should work for anybody, and maybe even more importantly because we can afford to.

If the immutable quality of Arab/Muslim culture is to live in bondage and vent by attacking the infidel and the Jew and nothing anyone can ever do will change that, then our task is pretty straightforward, isn't it?

I don't live in that world, thank goodness. People are people first, then colors, races, or creeds. I believe that given the opportunity, democracy can be effective in ending the threat.

I'm willing to pay a pretty steep price in lives and treasure to see it happen - willing to support the policy politically, and send what direct support I can.

The fact that the success of the strategy will resoundingly delegitamize the heart of multiculti/postmod philosophy doesn't count as a cost in my ledger book.

Posted by: TmjUtah at February 15, 2005 04:31 PM

"It's only a momentary situation, Montague. That damned rabble in homespun has no tax system, and they will fall because of it!"

LOL. That was pretty damn funny.

Posted by: MisterPundit at February 15, 2005 06:33 PM

It's true they didn't have a tax system and that's where we get the phrase "not worth a continental".

Similarly the confederacy didn't have a tax system, they ran the government on inflation. It worked pretty well up to the time there wasn't much to buy.

Posted by: J Thomas at February 15, 2005 08:30 PM

Tjmutah: "We are trying democratization because if it works for us, it should work for anybody, and maybe even more importantly because we can afford to"

But can Iraqis? There really does appear to be a 'democracy' threshhold of wealth and education that needs to be reached before any kind of civil society can form. Basically, undernourished and/or undereducated people make poor democrats, as they usually vote by identity or patronage (a trend that continues to a lesser extent in more advanced democracies) and those who attain power usually find no compelling reason to ever surrender that power (one person, one vote, one time).

This fits in with Karen Davis's analysis of democracy not as a nice thing governments do, but a concession that elites have to make to the rest of their societies when, because of their education and comparative wealth, more and more people demand a say in the decision making process. There are Arab countries where this process is a lot further down the road than Iraq.

Bush's (and that of many folks here) attitude about democracy reminds me of Soviet industrialization - both emphasize surface appearance over any deeper understanding of the complex structural requirements necessary before apeing the surface form will do any good. The Soviets managed to combine industrialization and famine (an innovative first) I wonder what the Bushies will accomplish.

Posted by: Michael Farris at February 16, 2005 04:51 AM

Michael, your analysis would imply that a democracy with a limited electorate might work.

That's what the USA and britain had. In britain constitutional monarchy started out limited to aristocrats and got expanded to more groups as they developed the clout to demand it. In the USA it started out limited to white male landowners and expanded similarly.

If the concern is that the underclasses won't make good voters, the obvious solution is to limit it to the people who would make good voters and expand it as needed.

This isn't PC and we'd have trouble finding a way to justify it, and it isn't our decision anyway. But it's a path we know works.

The british aristocracy was like a one-party system except you could only get into the Party by being born in it. The various parties were like factions in a one-party system. But they evolved beyond that.

Limited democracies are better than dictatorships. They provide a clear way to hand over power without violence. When somebody outside the system has a credible threat of revolution then they've proved they deserve to be in the system and they get added.

IF it's true that complete democracies don't spring fullgrown out of the foreheads of dictators, there could still be a workable path to get to them.

But we haven't established yet whether we should settle for anything less than full-grown democracy for other people. If they can have a complete democracy from the very first, why should we tolerate less? If we can bomb them into full democracy, why stop short?

Posted by: J Thomas at February 16, 2005 05:13 AM

"But we haven't established yet whether we should settle for anything less than full-grown democracy for other people. If they can have a complete democracy from the very first, why should we tolerate less?"

I agree, establishing a limited democracy seems a shabby thing to do, even knowing that a complete democracy that hasn't grown organically is very liable to not last very long.

Immature democracies (or people thrust into democracy before they've demanded/earned it) tend to make really rotten and unsustainable choices. I'm living next door to Belarus, with a duly elected (originally) dicatator who's made it clear he's never giving up power as long as he lives. Full democracy there lasted about five years (long enough for him to consolidate power).

Posted by: Michael Farris at February 16, 2005 06:20 AM

The US won't be leaving for years and years - hence the permanent bases and massive embassy.

Oh, I agree -- but this is the blog of unmitigated blind optimism, and I'm trying to get into the spirit.

I would also like to state that this is the best of all possible worlds, for the record.

Posted by: Kimmitt at February 16, 2005 08:45 AM

Check out How to Gamble in America :: Poker Index :: Poker Room Review :: Sports Index :: Sports Book Review :: Casino Index :: Casino Review :: Craps :: Blackjack Strategies :: Roulette :: Let It Ride :: Three Card Poker :: Video Poker :: Gambling Quotes :: Online Gambling :: Online Poker :: Draw Poker :: Poker Hand Rankings :: Texas Hold’em :: Seven Card Stud :: Seven Card High/Low :: Omaha :: Omaha High/Low :: Guide To Sports Betting :: The Basics to Wagering on Sports :: Parlays :: Teasers :: Half Point :: Sports Betting Tips & Tricks :: Money Management :: Sports Betting Terminology :: Horse Racing Tips :: Free NFL Pick :: Other Sites Index :: Past Featured Sites :: Other Sites :: Other Sites 2 :: Partner Sites

Also check out 100 Best Poker Rooms for all the best up to date online gambling sites.

And How to Gamble Online for all the best up to date online gambling sites.

Online Gambling Forum.

http://p097.ezboard.com/bhowtogambleinamerica

Posted by: How to Gamble at April 25, 2005 05:32 PM

klimatyzacja
projektowanie wnętrz
jiddu
3d
reklama
projektowanie stron
nieruchomości
forum ludzkie
poezja
swietlica
psycholog
agroturystyka
opony

Posted by: at June 5, 2005 05:28 AM

: Dish Network. : I use Dish Network.com.
Youll should get Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should get Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should get Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should get Dish Network.
Youll should get Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.

Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should get Dish Network.
Youll should get Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should get Dish Network.
Youll should get Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Direct TV.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Direct TV.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Direct TV.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Direct TV.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Direct TV.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Direct TV.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Direct TV.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network Offer.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Direct TV.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Dishnetwork.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Direct TV.
Youll should use Direct TV.
Youll should use Dish Network.
Youll should use Direct TV.
Youll should use Direct TV.
Youll should use Direct TV.
Youll should use Direct TV.
Youll should use Direct TV.
Youll should use Dishnetwork.
I use Dental Insurance. Posted by: David at June 24, 2005 02:42 PM

Thanks For The Blog ! Have A Great Weekend

http://www.geocities.com/awillinger/fun_d_mental.html

Posted by: casino at July 1, 2005 07:43 AM

Good Day Guys !

Posted by: health links at July 2, 2005 12:04 AM

Posted by: poker at July 2, 2005 04:49 AM

hello , nice day for blogging !

Posted by: links at July 3, 2005 07:18 AM

Posted by: matti at July 4, 2005 06:54 AM

http://newonlinecasinomarke.tripod.com/casinodirectory/

Posted by: links at July 4, 2005 01:10 PM

Greetings From NY !

Posted by: casinos at July 5, 2005 01:02 PM

Greetings From Encino , Ca !

Posted by: casino at July 17, 2005 08:42 AM

good day

Posted by: casino at July 18, 2005 07:37 AM

Hi Guys !

http://betterpr2004.tripod.com/httpwwwdolevyomelcom/

Posted by: casinos at August 1, 2005 11:51 PM

Posted by: znani nago at August 18, 2005 05:42 PM

Posted by: znani nago at August 18, 2005 05:46 PM

sekretarka osrana @ dymanko aneta keys @ lufy prywatnie @ ostra maturzystka @ live szpara @ macica rozjebana @ ciocia lusia ciezko dyszy @ mulatka na oklep @ szczytowanie sekretarka @ polka skora @ przygoda oralnie @ cipeczka akt @ ogolona lolita @ sztuczna dziwka @ siostra rozbierana @ wysmienicie dziwa @ modelki pl @ doroty rabczewskiej xxx @ modelki do sciagniecia @ rura seksowna @ ciocia lusia romantycznie @ gazety zywo @ wilgotnie szczeliny @ czeszki wilgotnie @ do pobrania wargi @ akt poza @ zdjecie dziewica @ tajka avi @ soczyscie blachara @ od srodka macica @ twoich marzen pizdy @ karina seksi @ brodawki piersi stopa @ szczelina ponczochy @ gwalcona frytka @ dziewic laska @ nago ewa sonet @ dziwa ponizana @ blizniaczka chentna @ zderzaki seksi @ szwedki seksi @ nastoletnia poza @ balangi online @ sciagnij muszelki @ szczeliny zdjecie @ rozbiera foczka @ blachary delikatnie @ cycuszki gfx @ mpg nauczycielka @ kurwy do dotykania

Posted by: ruben at September 8, 2005 06:08 AM

Hi I have been given the task of getting links for our websites thathave good page rank on the links directories.In addition we have many categories so your site will be place on an appropriate page. If you would like to trade links please send me your website details.Best Regards,seopro@walla.com
http://www2w.bravehost.com vs the best casino http://casino.vmedical.us new online casino
casinos
casino
online poker
online gambling
online casinos
online casinos
online casinos
online poker
online casinos
online casino
casino
poker
casino
casino
casinos
online casino
online gambling
casino
poker
neteller casinos
online casino
online slots
online casino
online poker
online casino
internet poker
free online poker
texas holdem poker
poker
online slots
online roulette
online blackjack
poker
online casinos
online casino

Posted by: online casinos at October 5, 2005 11:31 AM

Very nice site. panasonic jvc lg philips sony Telewizory Plazmowe

Posted by: Telewizory Lcd at October 19, 2005 03:15 PM

again ang again..

Posted by: Jr at November 11, 2005 05:09 AM

asc
kraob
eves
akupunktura
freesz
puz
domy opieki
mopinsite
oppin

Posted by: epart at December 23, 2005 07:41 AM

澳大利亚
 澳大利亚移民
 澳洲移民

压力开关
 压力变送器
 压力传感器
 流量开关
 流量计
 液位计