Gyroscope

A newsletter for those unmoved by spin.
No. 61, February 7, 2005

Subscribe

Change Address

Unsubscribe

Comment

So the Iraq election - it looks like a triumph for Bush, or at least that is how the "liberal" media in the US is portraying it. People opposed to the war are attacking the election for being undemocratic, filled with violence and not leading to a democratic state. Is that just sour grapes?

First, as some have observed, the courage of the Iraqi people in voting is not something that we own. Nor can we assume that their courage to vote was their endorsement of Bush. It is just as easy to surmise that they voted with such energy because they a) do want to choose their leaders, and b) think this is the fastest way to get US troops to leave.

It is characteristic of Bush, however, that he hides behind the Iraqis and claims they endorse his policy. He hides behind the pride of individual soldiers in their work and claims that is also an endorsement of his policies. He hides behind the evil of Saddam Hussein and claims that is an endorsement of a year of occupation after Saddam was removed.

Then, as a letter writer in today's New York Times pointed out, direct elections were not even Bush's plan. Bremmer proposed a series of appointments to a Constitutional Convention, and it was Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani who forced Bush's hand by demanding direct elections. Everyone raise their hand who now expect Bush to go on TV and say, "boy, Ayatollah, you were right and I was wrong, thanks for the push." Will the Ayatollah be invited to the White House to receive a medal of freedom? Bremmer was. Maybe Sistani might eat some roast goat at the Crawford ranch if he was invited nicely.

Bush opposed direct elections. Get that point clearly and remember it the next time he orates about bringing democracy to the world. Sources for that are here and here.

But what about the elections, and the media spin and problems: candidates who had to be anonymous, polling places that had to be secret until the time of the actual voting, the deaths during the day of voting, the places where voting couldn't take place. Well, we don't know the truth do we? The media is in full cheerleader mode now with images that suit their chosen story. We don't know what really happened and probably won't know for years.

But the real point to be made about the election is that nowhere in the case against the war is there the theory at absolutely everything must be a disaster. Across Iraq, many individual US soldiers have performed with courage and kindness to Iraqis. Many civilian workers from the US have risked their lives to help Iraqis. And many prison guards have been gentle and caring with those in their custody.

But that isn't the point. The war is wrong: it was an unnecessary war, sold to the American people for false reasons. It is $300 billion and 1,450 dead Americans and 10,000 wounded Americans and maybe 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians. To say, that the Iraqi people, impoverished, occupied, victims of terror attacks, have now done one more courageous thing and voted does not make all the error of this war go away. Even if the troops now leave and Iraq pulls itself together and in ten years is stable and growing, that will not make the war justified - because all this could have been achieved without lying to the American public, without corrupting our democracy, and without the carnage, destruction and looting of the war.

If you opposed the war, it is OK to celebrate the little, partial victory of the election - as long as you give credit where it is due: to an Iranian trained Ayatollah and millions who walked to the polls.