The Command Post
Iraq
January 31, 2005
Victory

Iraq's beautiful ink-stained fingerIraq won. America won. The human race won.

Immediately after polls closed, the New York Times grudgingly released their big story: "Amid Attacks, A Party Atmosphere on Baghdad's Closed Streets." You almost had to admire the Times' pluck: they so wanted tragedy, but they were grudgingly admitting the truth.

But then, barely four hours after polls closed, they changed the headline on the exact same story to this: Insurgent Attacks in Baghdad and Elsewhere Kill at Least 24

You have to laugh, don't you?

Millions upon millions voted despite being told that they and their families would be murdered--then walked the streets proudly waving their inked fingers, undeniable proof of their exercise of the franchise, showing anyone who wanted to see what they'd just done for themselves, their families, and their country.

Thousands of polling places were open and, despite our worst fears, only a handful saw any violence at all. At the few places that did see violence, people still showed up in droves to vote anyway.

Terrorists--and please, can we now dispense with the Orwellian term "insurgent?"--were openly defied and in some cases beaten senseless by enraged voters armed with nothing but their shoes.

Countless millions walked miles to vote. In one case, a polling place had to be opened over 10 miles away from its original location at the last moment--and people by the thousands streamed on foot, some of them on crutches, just to get there.

There's an old joke about walking a mile to smoke a camel. Well, these people walked ten miles on crutches just to smoke a terrorist.

How can your heart not burst with admiration?

Millions upon millions--including women and members of every minority group--voted for the first time in their lives. Even in neighboring Iran and Syria, expatriate Iraqis were able to vote while native Iranians and Syrians, still denied the right to vote in their own nations, looked on in wonder as freedom was exercised by their Iraqi friends.

And this is what the New York Times thought the most important, take-home message was: "Insurgent Attacks in Baghdad and Elsewhere Kill at Least 24."

They couldn't even call them terrorists.

I'm sure it'll get worse in the coming days. After all, these are the people who for two years now have consistently painted the greatest American military success story since 1945, and the lowest casualty rate in world history, as a "quagmire" that's "spinning out of control." These are the people who've given free voice to the modern reactionaries who speak of "imperialism" and "hubris," who demand that our poltical leaders admit failure, and compare terrorists who bomb hospitals and cut civilians' heads off to America's minutemen.

For two years, despite all of this anti-American propagandizing from our own press corps, our brave men and women in the armed forces have been protecting human rights, opening schools and hospitals and power plants and water and sewage treatment centers, stringing telephone and internet wires and helping to open free radio and television stations and newspapers. All while the naysayers just sneered. Then the naysayers and the petty, carping critics could do nothing but bite at GI Joe's ankles while he was setting up safety zones so that the Iraqis could hold free elections.

Then, while native Iraqi police and army did most of the security work, millions upon millions defied the terrorist threats and voted--while GI Joe stood quietly aside, blocks away from the polling stations and careful to stay out of the way. Our boys and girls were there, ready to help but only if called upon by the Iraqis themselves. And for the most part, they weren't needed. So they stayed out of sight all over the country, while the Iraqis had their much-deserved day of freedom without our intrusion.

Yes yes. "Insurgents In Baghdad And Elsewhere Kill 24." That's the take-home message. You have to laugh, don't you?

Well, soon it'll be back to talk of our imperialism and our hubris and our inability to "admit failure." We'll see prominent interviews with sullen Iraqis who didn't vote, or who complain that things still aren't perfect. Rarely will anyone note the irony that the freedom to complain is something these people never used to have, and that the freedom to vote includes the freedom not to vote if you don't want to.

Almost two years ago, on February 15, 2003, long before our military action to liberate Iraq from fascist tyrannty began, I started the following internet button campaign:

I remember the names I got called for that. The sneers at my character and at anyone who would display such a button. I remember being called an imperialist, a "Bush apologist," a right-wing propagandist, a liar, and worse by the kind of people who read things like Daily Kos and Metafilter and Democratic Underground and Truthout and Indymedia and The Nation. By the kind of people who make excuses for lying hate-propagandists like Michael Moore. But those voices, they just get smaller, and tinier, and funnier, and sadder, all the time.

Today, with the exception of the days my sons were born, I have never felt prouder. All of us bloggers who supported Iraq's liberation from fascism, all of us who worked against the relentlessly defeatist American press corps, have something to be proud of. We were nowhere near as important as those who served in the military, nowhere near as important as the countless Iraqis who took control of their own fate despite the those who said the Iraqis "didn't want" or were "incapable of" democracy. Our role was small.

But we mattered. We let people know that most of the press wasn't telling the full story. We let people know that the press wanted us to fail, wanted us to lose. We let people know there was reason for hope and optimism. We let people know this was a fight worth fighting, a cause worthy of American blood and treasure.

By the way, remember this?






I never forgot.

We were right.

(This item originally appeared here.)

Posted By at January 31, 2005 07:21 AM | TrackBack
Comments

In today's NYTimes, the headline and lead story left the impression that Iraqi participation in the election was resoundingly strong across the board. The number they offered (in the third paragraph of the lead column) was that Sunni participation might have reached 40%. Oh, the pleasures of relying on the wishful thinking of Adnan Pachachi and visual accounts of Western reporters on military patrols through ill-disposed Arab neighborhoods.

Other sources, it seemed, felt compelled to let facts interfere with the euphoria.

In Anbar Provence, for example, the heart of the Sunni population and the location of both Ramadi and Fallujah, the L.A. Times reported that less than 20,000 out of as many as 250,000 eligible voters actually voted. According to the Times, voting was "almost nonexistent" in the other Sunni provinces of Salahuddin, Nineveh and Diyala. In Baqubah, which is north of Baghdad and has a population of 300,000, that city counted 17,000 people as voting.

Unofficial tallies indicated that 1,700 people voted in Ramadi, which the LA paper reminded is home to 400,000 residents. They reported that 8,000 voted in Fallouja, which has (or, at least, had) a population 200,000 people. (Apparently, the voters of Fallujah were not facing much of a security threat either, given that polling places were set up at the large relief centers that now distribute food, water and cash to people whose homes were destroyed in the "liberation" of the city.)

And, what of the northern city of Mosul? This is where the U.S. military had been conducting intensive raids to help insure a successful election. (It's also the location of the graffiti wars, the military electioneering and the military "home drop-ins" I've been following.) In spite of the statement by Army Maj. David Spencer, intelligence officer with the 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, that "people were coming out in droves," the LA Times reported that only about 54,000 voters showed up to vote in a city of 1.8 million. That's about 3%.

If the goal of this exercise was to bring democracy to Iraq through a representative election, why all the celebrating? Oh yeah. It's because, after promising the world and the American people a legitimate outcome, the Administration saw it couldn't deliver and campaigned for lower expectations.

Apparently, they won that initiative too.

www.bagnewsnotes.com

Posted by: 123four [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 1, 2005 01:25 PM

12 hour,

What the **** are you talking about; you make no sense.

Posted by: augurwell [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 1, 2005 01:34 PM

Isn't is obvious, augurwell? 1234 is telling us that the elections in Iraq were actually NOT successful. Apparently now the litmus test is how many Sunnis were included in the voting despite that the overall turnout was higher than in the U.S.

Its amazing to me the pretzels these people will turn themselves into to make any success a failure, to see the stormcloud in every silver lining. But no one is fooled any more.

Posted by: johnnymozart [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 1, 2005 04:44 PM

johnnymozart - One of the special thrills of this election is watching the cynical left twist on the hook. First, Michael Moore's cut out of the Oscars, now this. You'll find them all in darkened rooms listening to their Peter, Paul and Trotsky records. Bummer.

Posted by: torpedo_eight [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 2, 2005 06:05 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.


Remember me?