Many in the media were caught off guard as events unfolded in Iraq.
AMID unexpected calm, millions of Iraqis turned out in the sunshine yesterday to vote on a new constitution whose advocates claimed it would unite the country in a progressive democracy but whose critics warned that it would ultimately prove divisive.
Call it a failure of intelligence despite the fact that they had scores of operatives on the ground collecting information.
Many in the Media expected a different Iraq
...the Iraq that is teetering on the brink of civil war - The Independent Oct. 14 2005
...Prime Minister Jaafari's government has failed to deliver basic services or curb the rising insurgency - New York Sun Oct 10, 2005
...Nearly two-thirds of the new Iraqi army units are only "partially capable" of fighting rebels - and only then with US help, while up to half of Iraq's new police forces cannot carry out their duties - Guardian July 21, 2005
What they saw instead was a situation where there was the opposite of civil war, only 10 attacks by terrorists, and security provided almost exclusively by Iraqis.
Seeing with less obscured vision, the folks at Strategy Page point out
The government is getting better at running national elections under the threat of terrorist attacks. The legislative elections last January had fewer than ten million people voting (69 percent of those registered), and over 40 people killed by terrorists opposed to the elections. This vote, on the new constitution, brought out over ten million, and left fewer than ten dead....
All of this is another major defeat for the al Qaeda and anti-government forces. These two groups have not been able to stop any elections, and their efforts are weaker with each round of voting. Al Qaeda's efforts to goad the Shia Arabs into a civil war with Sunni Arabs has not worked either, although it has caused a lot of ill-will and violence in areas where Shia and Sunni live close together.
The anti-government forces have little to sustain them. The October 15 election was just another of many major defeats. And every day, there are numerous lesser defeats. But some of the Sunni Arab terrorists will keep at it, and it will be years before this threat is completely gone from Iraq. That's been the pattern in other Arab countries over the past few decades.
Still, the New York Times reports
The mood on the streets of many Iraqi cities, even in Shiite areas, appeared markedly less enthusiastic than on Jan. 30, when millions of Iraqis braved an onslaught of violence to cast ballots and celebrate in a vast outpouring of pro-democratic sentiment.
Contradicting observations by an Arab news agency
Arab Shi’ites across Iraq danced and celebrated ahead of what they believe is a certain approval of the country’s new constitution in yesterday’s referendum.
In Sadr City, an impoverished Shiite neighborhood in Baghdad, crowds took to the streets waving portraits of their religious leaders. “Our constitution has been approved, down with the Baathists!” chanted one joyful crowd, in reference to members of Saddam Hussein’s disbanded political party.
Shiites, largely oppressed during more than two decades of Saddam’s rule, comprise more than half of Iraq’s population of 26 million.
Soldiers and police providing security frequently joined the crowd, waving their weapons and dancing.
There is much to do in Iraq: Democracy is a process not an event.
And failure always a possibility.
But the Islamists have suffered another strategic defeat because regardless of whether or not the Constitution is approved, it is the voting itself that they wanted to defeat.
They did not have a political position on the Constitution: they stand against Democracy and pluralism.
And every time an Arab votes, they suffer yet another defeat.
You would think that a defeat for the terrorists, no matter how small, would be hailed by all free peoples.
You would think that a defeat for dictatorships and fascism, no matter how small would be welcomed by those who support liberalism.
You would think that all would be behind the spread of Democratic institutions in an area in which it is sorely lacking.
So are they? General Wesley Clark, annunciates the response from the Democrats
Clark, who was NATO's supreme allied commander during the Kosovo war in 1999, called the vote "an important political event" and said "I wish this were the end of the story in Iraq, but it isn't." He criticized the Bush administration's handling of the war in his remarks.
"Public confidence in President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq has sunk to an all-time low. An increasing number of Americans of all political persuasions are now calling for expedited withdrawal of U.S. forces.
"More and more Americans are angry. They are angry about the president's incompetence and his general unwillingness to acknowledge with some humility that he has made some terrible and tragic mistakes regarding the mission in Iraq."
Clark opposes a premature withdrawal.
"America cannot allow itself to be so blinded by anger over this administration's mishandling of events since the removal of Saddam Hussein from power that we are unable to see the danger of pushing for a premature withdrawal of U.S. forces. Those who would use terror as a tactic in Iraq would be rewarded and emboldened if we pull out prematurely. We cannot do that."
He urged the president "to give the American people clear answers to basic questions" about the Iraqi operation.
Was that praise? It's hard to tell. How about I answer what General Clark seemingly can't comprehend:
- We will be done in Iraq when they have a functioning Democracy or it is clear it can not happen.
- The US footprint will decrease as Iraqis become more capable. And clearly they are more capable now than they were a year ago. And they will be more capable still a year from now.
- Every vote by Iraqis is another defeat for terrorists: and defeating the terrorists is what we all want, right?
- Every exercise of freedom in Iraq inspires people in other Arab (and Persian) nations to demand more from their governments in this regard.
- A politically and economically free Middle East is better for the world, and the US than the current situation.
Is there any Democrat leader that would have had this vision and the balls to attempt it? Who? (Difficulty: they have to not be dead)
Is there any Democrat leader that will have the balls to see it through in the future? Surely.
But can they get the nomination....
