A Leauki's Writings
Take That, Liberals!
Published on March 21, 2010 By Leauki In International

This is an opportunity for a really sarcastic article about how the supposed war crime of liberating Iraq somehow led to Iraqis voting for the very people who not only supported the invasion but even those who made the invasion happen. But instead of writing such an article, I thought I will rather celebrate this great democratic success and give liberals who opposed the invasion a chance to celebrate this too.

For the third time Iraqis have had the chance to vote.

Omar of Iraq the Model wrote on March 5th:

In December 2005 we walked from home to the voting center (which also used to be where I went to school as a kid) to a soundtrack of mortars and gunfire. Indeed, that ten minute walk was wrapped in so much fear and worry, but also in so much hope and pride.

My trip to the voting center will be less interesting this time because I'll be taking the orange line to Arlington where the place is, which happens to be some hotel whose owner will eventually be Paris Hilton.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2010/03/iraq-elects-again.html

And now the elections have gone and we have preliminary results. From Wikipedia:

State of Law Coalition 2,535,704 25.69% 89 +76
Iraqi National Movement (al-Iraqiya) 2,543,632 25.77% 87 +51
National Iraqi Alliance 1,915,654 19.41% 71 -46
Kurdistani Alliance 1,521,772 15.42% 40 −13
Movement for Change (Gorran) 433,731 4.39% 8 +8
Unity Alliance of Iraq 286,511 2.90% 6 +6
Iraqi Accord Front (al-Tawafuq) 266,938 2.70% 8 −36
Etihad Islamic Union 226,575 2.30% 5 ±0
Islamic Movement of Kurdistan 141,445 1.43% 3 +3

Let's take a look at who these lists are. You can follow the Wikipedia links if you like, but I have some things to add to some of these entries.

 

The Iraqi National Movement, the winner of this election, is a secular movement of both Sunnis and Shiites led by Eyad Allawi. Allawi was the appointed prime minister of Iraq during the US occupation and an enemy of Saddam Hussein for 30 years. He is a former Baathist (member of Saddam's party) who publicly disagreed with Saddam's views and fled Iraq to live in Britain for decades. In the 1990s he was involved in a US-supported coup that unfortunately failed to topple Saddam's government.

It was he who gave western agencies the reports about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.

It was Allawi who convinced most western governments that Saddam had a WMD program and was ready to strike British troops within 45 minutes.

Nick Theros, the Washington representative of Iyad Allawi, who headed the Iraqi National Accord in exile, said it was raw intelligence from a single source, part of a large amount of information passed on by the INA to MI6.

He told the Guardian: "We were passing it on in good faith. It was for the intelligence services to verify it."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/jan/27/uk.iraq

Bush's "lie" if you will was really Allawi's error, the same Allawi whom a majority of Iraqis apparently want to be the new prime minister of Iraq. This is all well-known in Iraq.

The INM is a very pro-western and pro-American list and has been chosen by 25.77% of Iraqis.

 

The State of Law Coalition is a list formed around current prime minister al-Maliki's Islamic Dawa Party. The Islamic Dawa Party opposed Saddam's rule in the 1980s and like Kurdish groups sided with Iran during the first Gulf War (the one between Iraq and Iran). Originally supported by Iran the party has since distanced itself from the Iranian regime.

Under their previous leader al-Jaffari (who was prime minister of Iraq for one year in 2005) the Islamic Dawa Party was also the only major Shiite group that opposed the invasion of Iraq. The current leader of the party, prime minister al-Maliki worked with both Iran and Hizbullah and the US in the 1990s to toppe Saddam's regime. 

Al-Maliki comes from a well-known family that supported the King of Iraq.

The SLC is as pro-western as it is pro-Iranian and has the support of 25.69% of Iraqis.

 

The National Iraqi Alliance is a union of Shiite Islamist groups of several nationalities (Arab, Kurdish and Turkmen). They used to be allied with the Islamic Dawa Party but are not any more. I don't know much else about them.

The NIA has the support of 19.41% of Iraqis.

 

The Kurdistani Alliance is a coalition of the two historical Kurdish parties, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (Barzani) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (Talabani). Massoud Barzani, the president of Iraqi Kurdistan is the leader of the one, Jalal Talabani, the current president of Iraq, is the leader of the other. Both come from families long known on Kurdistan for their opposition to Saddam's regime and both had been supported in their fight for Kurdistan by the Shah of Iran.

The Kurdistani Alliance is probably the most pro-western and pro-American party in Iraq and got 15.42%.

 

The Kurdish Movement for Change evolved from parts of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and many members are members in both groups. It might be the first party that runs on something other than sectarianism (Islamist, secular Shiite, secular Sunni, secular both, Kurdish) and instead has a platform advocating economic liberalism and budget transparency.

4.39%.

 

The Unity Alliance of Iraq has its roots in the Awakening movement, the Sunni militia that fought against (and beat) Al-Qaeda in Iraq. In the 2010 elections the Awakening movement's party joined forces with the Iraqi Constitutional Party, a group of secular Shiites, and individual Kurdish politicians.

This secular Sunni movement with Shia support got 2.9% of the votes.

 

The remaining three lists (6.43%) are a sectarian Sunni group and two Kurdish Islamist movements. Note that "Kurdish Islamist" really is more comparable to European Christian Democrats than to what the word "Islamist" usually means.

 

All-in-all Iraqis have just voted for a very pro-western and pro-American new parliament. They specifically voted for the guy responsible for the invasion. An they clearly voted Iran out of Iraq again.

I think this is the time for the west to support Iraq more again!

The experiment worked. Iraq has become more democratic and more liberal and secular.

 

To end this in the same spirit of hope it was written in I recommend you watch this interview with Iyad Jamal ad-Din, an Iraqi politician and Shiite cleric whom I have mentioned before, when he talks about Iraq, Israel, and Islam; three things that start with different letters in the original (Ayin, Yud, Alef):

http://www.spike.com/video/iyad-jamal-al-din/2719562

 

 


Comments (Page 1)
on Mar 21, 2010

...

on Mar 22, 2010

Instead, the hopeless flower children demonstrated on the anniversary of the invasion against the occupation of Iraq, and against the war.  I am not sure why they were demonstrating.  They have the most friendly ear in the whitehouse who has promised to fulfill all their hopes and dreams (Being a politician, he has yet to deliver on the promises).  I guess self determination is an anathema to them.  After all, they can't even remember their own names, much less those they decided should mother and care for them.

Thanks for the write-up.  Your intended audience will not read this.  They are either too stupid or too afraid to.

on Mar 22, 2010

Thanks for the write-up.  Your intended audience will not read this.  They are either too stupid or too afraid to.

My audience are people like you, American patriots whom I do what I can to convince to support Israel and Iraq. I am trying to convince people like you that supporting middle-eastern allies is not only the morally right thing to do but also worth it in the long run.

There is no way I can convince "anti-war" liberals with the mere fact that Iraqis disagree with them.

 

on Mar 22, 2010

My audience are people like you

While many would classify me an unabashed hawk, the truth is I am not for war at any or all costs.  And I do believe there are times not to go to war. However, I also recognize that war is a necessary evil that must be employed when dealing with irrational people.  And history (and current events) is filled with irrational people that unfortunately hold power. 

For that reason, I think you are preachign to the choir if I was the intended audience, but more so:

There is no way I can convince "anti-war" liberals with the mere fact that Iraqis disagree with them.

I thought I will rather celebrate this great democratic success and give liberals who opposed the invasion a chance to celebrate this too.

I took that pair of statements to mean those who refuse to believe that force is ever needed in human endeavors.  There are only 2 possible outcomes for those people.  Death from tyranny (dying under the hands of those they refuse to still), or a conversion by force.  The force of those they would never lift a finger against during their times of plenty, but circumstances required them to finally realize evil exists.

on Mar 22, 2010

For that reason, I think you are preachign to the choir if I was the intended audience

Not necessarily. As you say, you are not, in fact, an unabashed hawk. And I assume the same is true for the vast majority of "hawks". What I am trying to do is convince you and people like you that Iraq and Israel are good causes to be hawkish about and good countries for the US to support.

I want you to know that Israelis support the US and would do so even if the US actually needed help and that the same is true for many Iraqis, who are becoming more pro-American as we speak.

 

 

on Mar 22, 2010

I want you to know that Israelis support the US and would do so even if the US actually needed help and that the same is true for many Iraqis, who are becoming more pro-American as we speak.

Of that I have no doubt. Israel loves the US because of what America stands for and its founding principals.  I dare say they do not like all the leaders, but realize that should the US fall, the principals for which it stands probably would never be repeated in the world (other than small pockets).  Iraq is just very grateful.  In time they may be another France, but for now, they love us for how much we helped them - without compensation (no oil, sorry Liberals).

on Mar 22, 2010

Of that I have no doubt. Israel loves the US because of what America stands for and its founding principles.  I dare say they do not like all the leaders, but realize that should the US fall, the principles for which it stands probably would never be repeated in the world (other than small pockets). 

Yes, that's true. Israelis do love and respect America's ideals.

 

Iraq is just very grateful.  In time they may be another France, but for now, they love us for how much we helped them - without compensation (no oil, sorry Liberals).

I think we will find over the next few years that there is a genuine love for some of the same principles in Iraq. American principles are very similar to some of the Shiite principles (from before Khomeini) and the Kurds have admired America for much longer than just the last few years.

Think about it. Iraq legalised homosexuality in 2004, being the fourth country in the region to do so. And their supreme court decided that Iraqi MPs can visit Israel if they want to. The fact that those two things even happened and did not cause the people to rebel already tells us a lot of what Iraqi society is really like.

Iraqis, despite what we came to think of Arabs and Muslims, are in fact a very tolerant and modern people.

If will not be long and we can learn from them and improve our own societies based on their ideas.

Just like we did 4000 years ago.

 

 

on Mar 22, 2010

Oh, I know we left a lasting impression on Iraq. But after all, France is not a banana republic either.  A very much love-hate relationship, and that is what I meant with Iraq.  They may get to hate us, but still love us.  For now, we are best of pals. I really hope it lasts, but with the exception of the Netherlands, America has had no continuous friends since birth.  No country really does, just goals in common which makes them allies for a time.

on Mar 22, 2010

but with the exception of the Netherlands, America has had no continuous friends since birth. 

Morocco.

 

on Mar 22, 2010

I don't mind friends that tell us we're wrong, when we are wrong, but it's all about how they go about doing it. Who would have thought the UK would end up being the USA's best pal. It took WWI to break the ice and WWII to cement the friendship. One would think it would be the same for France-US, and perhaps even more so, but that's what public disagreement gets you. 

on Mar 23, 2010

Leauki


but with the exception of the Netherlands, America has had no continuous friends since birth.

Morocco.

I should have said uninterrupted since Morocco was ruled by France for a short period during that time.

on Mar 23, 2010

I should have said uninterrupted since Morocco was ruled by France for a short period during that time.

The Netherlands were ruled by Germany for a few years.

But Morocco was still self-governing even under French rule.

 

on Mar 24, 2010

The Netherlands were ruled by Germany for a few years.

But Morocco was still self-governing even under French rule.

But the government in exile was not.  Still, I will concede your point and add Morocco.  It is perhaps a better example anyway as that friendship seems to be more on a convergence of interests than even the Netherlands.

on Mar 24, 2010

But the government in exile was not.  Still, I will concede your point and add Morocco.  It is perhaps a better example anyway as that friendship seems to be more on a convergence of interests than even the Netherlands.

Morocco's government wasn't in exile. The King was local and even protected Jews from the Vichy government during World War 2.

The subject of Morocco's alliance with the US is quite current at the moment because of the situation in Algeria. Algeria and Morocco are still at war over the Sahara territory which is occupied by Morocco (if you can believe that something like that can happen in the Middle-East) and claimed by an Algerian-sponsored group of freedom fighters (if you can fathom the tragedy). Morocco build a wal through the occupied territory in response. (Oy!)

I understand that currently in the US the administration is thinking of preferring Algeria over Morocco with the (evil bloodsucking) Zionist lobby promoting Morocco over Algeria.

 

on Mar 24, 2010

Morocco's government wasn't in exile.

The legitimate government of the Netherlands was.  Sorry for the confusion.

Meta
Views
» 234
Comments
» 18
Category
Sponsored Links