Howard Dean: Keep The Election On Track

[janx]

http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_16963.shtml

The Bush administration is strongly encouraging elections in Iraq to take place on January 30, and I believe that is the right course to take. The only chance America has to get out of Iraq, without long-term damage to our national security, is to let Iraqis take over their country’s government as soon as possible.

The Iraq War has been a foreign policy and defense disaster based on deceit, unwillingness to listen to experienced military and diplomatic advice, and a total misunderstanding of terrorism. We need to bring our troops home without additional damage to our national security, our international reputation and, of course, additional loss of American and Iraqi lives.

Pulling out the troops at once is not compatible with either national security or what shreds of our international credibility are left. Now that we are in Iraq, we need to do our best to leave behind a stable nation. At best, Iraq would be a secure country with a democratic government, equal rights for women and a stable economy. What will more likely transpire is a Shiite theocracy with ties to Iran. The worst outcome, and unfortunately the most likely one, is a prolonged civil war with a growing opportunity for terrorists to turn what is left of Iraq into permanent terrorist bases.

I believe that the Shiites, under the guidance of Ayatollah al Sistani, will win these elections. Whether they can be prevented from setting up a theocracy is unknown. But, delaying the elections will lead to an even more prolonged period of violence and further destruction of Iraqi infrastructure. This will increase what the American taxpayer is already paying for the Iraqi invasion, and make a successful transition to Iraqi independence even less likely.

I support allotting a certain percentage of seats in these elections for the Sunnis. This is the only way to protect at least 20 percent of the seats in the new Iraqi parliament. In the likely case that there will be a much reduced Sunni electoral participation due to various boycotts and the direct threat of violence against both voters and office seekers. Guaranteeing the Sunni seats is also an attempt to prevent what will surely be an understandable temptation for the Shittes to use their electoral majority to enforce what our founding fathers successfully avoided in our own constitution, the "tyranny of the majority."

(More at link)

[madfloridian]

1. I believe he fears a Sunni bloodbath. So do I.

I can't wait to see the attacks on this column, but there has to be someone in control before we pull out. Whoever it is, the women will pay dearly in the upcoming theocracy. They had more freedom before.

I fear just pulling out would mean the mass graves from Iraq I.

[janx]

2. This is the reality:

At best, Iraq would be a secure country with a democratic government, equal rights for women and a stable economy. What will more likely transpire is a Shiite theocracy with ties to Iran. The worst outcome, and unfortunately the most likely one, is a prolonged civil war with a growing opportunity for terrorists to turn what is left of Iraq into permanent terrorist bases.

We have to face it.

[paulk]

3. I said this two weeks ago and got called a Republican

"I support allotting a certain percentage of seats in these elections for the Sunnis. This is the only way to protect at least 20 percent of the seats in the new Iraqi parliament. In the likely case that there will be a much reduced Sunni electoral participation due to various boycotts and the direct threat of violence against both voters and office seekers. Guaranteeing the Sunni seats is also an attempt to prevent what will surely be an understandable temptation for the Shittes to use their electoral majority to enforce what our founding fathers successfully avoided in our own constitution, the "tyranny of the majority.""

The only disagreement I have with this statement is I don't think the ties to Iran will be as strong as Dean (and others) believe - Sistani may have those ties, but Iraqi nationalism won't allow Iran too much say... unless Chalibi worms his way into office - then, who knows?

There are no good solutions.

[janx]

4. Ah yes...

We should never discount the Chalabi factor!

[Edgewater_Joe]

5. Republicans Don't Know What Reality Is

So if someone called you a Republican for saying this, they were in the wrong.

And once again, Dean speaks truth to power.

No wonder he scares the bejesus out of the Democratic Losers' Consultancy.

[paulk]

7. well, actually, it was a number of posters on this board

"the "anti-war" means pulling out of Iraq tomorrow" crowd.

[janx]

9. I dunno...a lot of fundies have found their way to Iraq as a result

of the U.S. invasion and occupation.

"Better to fight them there than here" was the official Chimpy rationale, I believe. (He said this to fool the people. It's ironic that the inevitable actually happened, but it's not surprising. We predicted it would.)

[madfloridian]

6. This paragraph is so sad, and most likely true.

SNIP..."Pulling out the troops at once is not compatible with either national security or what shreds of our international credibility are left. Now that we are in Iraq, we need to do our best to leave behind a stable nation. At best, Iraq would be a secure country with a democratic government, equal rights for women and a stable economy. What will more likely transpire is a Shiite theocracy with ties to Iran. The worst outcome, and unfortunately the most likely one, is a prolonged civil war with a growing opportunity for terrorists to turn what is left of Iraq into permanent terrorist bases."

We did a horrible thing when we invaded another country. There was no excuse, and we are in a mess. What we have done to those educated people with a high level of literacy is absolutely shameful.

[janx]

8. That's what so many of us were afraid of, even before Colin

Powell gave that ludicrous presentation at the U.N....