DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ
Members of the session,
I am pleased to have this opportunity of contributing to the debate about the future of democracy in Iraq , where I was born. Let me first introduce my self, a software engineer working for a leading high tech networking company here in the Bay area.. Left Iraq in 1994, I spent last twenty years in Baghdad. Went through the three stages of Baathist regime. i.e. pre Iran war, Iran eight years war and post Iran war.

Some question, in the specific case of Iraq, whether the Iraqi populous is ready for democracy and if democracy would succeed in Iraq.. I submit that it is.
Since the coup of 1958 in which Iraq's nascent political institutions were utterly destroyed to be replaced by the rule of a man/group/party, Iraq has been subjected to different level of tyranny spectrum, from the military figure Kassim of 1958-1963 to the fascism of Saddam Hussein. More particularly, over the past twenty years, Iraqis have paid a mortifying price for the absence of legitimate political institutions: 250,000 killed in the disastrous war with Iran; 200,000 Kurds killed in the Anfal Campaign; 200,000 killed in the Gulf War, first by allied forces, then by Saddam=s thugs; then came the devastation of twelve years of on-going sanctions. The number of Iraq=s dead over this twenty-year period thus approaches one million souls.
Iraqis have learnt the lessons of the consequences of tyranny. When given an opportunity, and with US help, the Kurds of Northern Iraq have re-established political institutions reminiscent of those which predated the coup of 1958. They have, for instance, elected a parliament to legislate in the areas in the northern no-fly zone. Iraq's Kurdish citizens began the daunting task of rebuilding a civil society at the first opportunity they had of doing so without fear of retaliation from Saddam. There is every reason to be sanguine that the rest of Iraq's population yearns equally to build a society based upon the fundamental freedoms we enjoy. This is proven through my personal talk with all different people in Iraq.. They all keep strong commitment to a democratic new system. Indeed, Iraq's opposition groups have recognized this truth; across the political spectrum, from the Iraqi Communist Party to the Psalmists, Iraq's opposition groups have committed themselves to a democratic Iraq after the fall of Saddam and his thugs.
There are other reasons to be optimistic about Iraq's future. Iraq's population is relatively well educated. First, the literacy rate in Iraq is between 85-90%, a figure actually higher than what is in the United States. (I note, in any case, that education is hardly a full match for democracy, as the examples of India and Bangladesh attest). This fact bodes well for a future, civilized discourse and for the rule of law in Iraq. Second, Iraq's intelligentsia largely dispersed in western Diaspora. Its physicians, engineers, scientists, humanists, and thinkers occupy positions at leading academic and commercial institutions the world over. Their contribution to a post-Ba'thist future will be indispensable in aiding a transfer of real democratic conceptions of self-governance to Iraq's polity.
Another reason to be optimistic about Iraq's future involves the high degree of cohesion enjoyed by Iraq's various ethnic and confessional groups. On this issue, we must guard against myths, which the media have begun to peddle. Some highly respected analysts recently observed that Iraq's ethnic and confessional groups are Along-time enemies. While such observations may contribute to an emerging orthodoxy, they are utterly wrong, and completely ignore Iraq's history as a nation over the last eighty years.
I would point out that there is not one instance in Iraq's modern history of, say, a Sunnite village rising to massacre its Shiite inhabitants, or vice versa. The same is true of Iraq's other confessional and ethnic groups, with the exception of the maltreatment of Iraq's Jewish population over the issue of Israel in the late 1940's and early 1950's. Other than that one example, in those instances in which massacres of ethnic or religious groups have taken place, I am noting that guilt has always lain with the central government in Baghdad in exerting its authority over the population in question. Two prime recent examples are Saddam's monstrous chemical attacks in Halabja and other Kurdish areas, and his brutal suppression of the rebels in northern and southern Iraq in 1991. Saddam Hussein knows no tribal, confessional, or ethnic loyalties. He has killed members of his own family at the slightest suspicion of disloyalty. The point is this: When Iraq's central government does not play a malevolent role, Iraq's ethnic and religious groups have maintained a high degree of harmony and accord. Given a non-militarized, democratic government more devoted to development at home and peace with its neighbors, there is every reason to believe that Iraqis will rebuild a pacific, cohesive, pluralistic nation.
Nay-Sayers observe also that one cannot expect an AJeffersonian democracy in Iraq. Perhaps so, but the democracy which Thomas Jefferson helped to engender was not AJeffersonian either. Jefferson, in combination with other Southern aristocrats, owned hundreds of thousands of slaves, and the franchise was limited to white property-owning males. Nor is our own journey toward civil rights and full equality concluded, as the need for laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and other such laws demonstrates. Though all these observation might be based on some legitimate reasoning, we must not sacrifice our idealism and the earnest hopes of Iraq's people because we might fail to achieve perfection in Iraq.
Another myth that some analysts raised is the fear of possibility of a new religious dictatorship in Iraq. I would like to submit that this is another complete fail to that analyst. Surprisingly most of such analysts are same who already were against the war that led to the Iraqi people freedom joy. There is no any one religious main figure within Iraq had even asked for such. From supreme Ayatollah Sistani to the young religious figure Alsader, not mentioning the Iranian base strong political Alyatola Alhakim, all ask only for establishment of legitimate political institutions. The supreme Ayatollah forbid any political slogans during the last week Kerbala's shiet pilgrimage. You may all noticed that all those slogans with political demands where raised on small white paper in a mostly personal well English edited style and easy to hide but to show to the TV cameras.. That is because they were representing their small numbered holders and nothing to do with the massive pilgrims who were enjoying their first time ever freedom after thirty years.
Those who know shie theology know very well that Iranian government style is not a traditional shiet doctorin on the relation between Religious and state. The traditional Shie Ethnay-Ashree believes, as most Iraqi Shie would, that State should not be ruled by the religion. In deed this one of the main issues that Iranian leaders may fear from. A strong restored Najaf shie clergy that would challenge the Iranian leaders claim of Faqeh rule as the case in Iran.

True democracy coupled with the rule of law and the protection of civil rights is what most Iraq wanted. Promotion of these values in Iraq is no less a matter of the national interest than it has been in Eastern Europe in the post-Soviet era. It is time for the wall of despotism to fall, Iraq can lead the way. I believe we must, we will have not only the opportunity but also the responsibility of facilitating the aspirations of Iraq's people for the establishment of legitimate political institutions. If we settle for anything less, we will not only have betrayed Iraq's suffering masses, but our own ideals as well.

Wow. You helped do away with some of my biggest fears for the future of Iraq as planted by Western media misunderstanding. You make a great deal of sense to me, and hope to most Iraqis as well. I do hope you are representative of the feelings of most Iraqis, because if this is the case, you are guaranteed a bright, peaceful, prosperous and democratic future. The great Iraqi people deserve nothing less than all of this.
Submitted by: Tom Penn [email] [web]
Wednesday, 11.12.2003 @ 5:56 PM

Amen Tom! Excellent post!

منتدى الفكر العربي يطرد باحثا عراقيا أشاد بـ«قوات التحرير» الأميركية ـ البريطانية
عمان: سامي محاسنة
شهدت ندوة لـ«منتدى الفكر العربي» في عمان امس مشادة كلامية بين حضور كثيف من المفكرين العرب وباحث عراقي من اصل كردي يدعى حسين سنجاري ادت في النهاية الى طرده من قاعة الندوة.
وكان سنجاري وهو رئيس لاحدى منظمات حقوق الانسان العراقية في المهجر قد قال في مداخلته ان «العراق يعيش الآن بحرية تامة لأن قوات (التحرير) الاميركية والبريطانية قضت على حكم الرئيس السابق صدام حسين».
وطالب سنجاري المفكرين العرب بمناقشة قضايا الاقليات (مثل الاكراد) في الوطن العربي مما اثار بعض الحضور.
ورد الدكتور علي عتيقة الامين السابق للمنتدى والمهندس ليث شبيلات على سنجاري وتحول الرد الى مشادة شارك فيها عدد من الحضور، الامر الذي ادى الى تحرك احد الموظفين، واخرج سنجاري من الندوة، معللا ذلك بانه لم توجه له الدعوة رسميا لحضور اعمال المنتدى.

Hi there,

Needless to say, I for one am extremely happy at the fall of saddam and his group of thugs..err..."party". hehe. But my elation at his fall, is tempered by fear of what/who is going to replace him. No one wants to see one dictator go down, only to be replaced by another.

Here is what I think: First off, I do not mean to split hairs, but "democracy" pure and simple is mob rule. I doubt this is what you want to Iraq - that would mean replacing the arbitrary rule of one person with the arbitrary rule of a group of people. Democracy is when 6 out of 10 people vote to kill the other 4 because they dont like their haircuts. I doubt this is what you really meant though, but I did want to point that out, because Athenian Democracy (it was first tried in ancient Athens) is certainly not what we want!

Moving on then, instead of a democracy, where the highest law of the land is dependant on the mob of the week, the highest law in the land must be put in the form of a constitution - etch it in stone if you have to! But this constitution is what would define the New Iraq - in fact I would even add to it that any change to the constitution actually be a breach of sovereinty. (spelling??)

In the constitution, we would put the following things, including, but not limited to:

1) Freedom of speech. Being allowed to peacefully protest, talk, write, communicate, regardless of political affiliation, or such. Any and all speech must be allowed, except for inticement to violence maybe. But even that is iffy.

2) Freedom of religion. (speaks for itself).

but also very importantly,

3) Freedom to own private property. I cannot stress this enough. A tell-tale sign of an incoming dictatorship is when the government starts to take away your property, like guns for example. A just government has nothing to fear from its populace, whereas one that has ulterior motives for tyranny would try to disarm the polulace, by taking away any form of resistance the populace might use, like guns. (property). Keep Iraqi citizens armed.

4) Presumption of innocence. A person can never be guilty until a fair trial, where he is convicted of being guilty. No arbitrary searches and seizures.

Any Iraqi candidate for office will have to take uphold the constitution - and would swear to it. Of course, there has to be the separation of powers to: Executive, Ligistlative, and Judicial. Even the president's exec powers would be limited. I have seen videos of Iraqi police acting like all three branches - Once they apprehend the suspect, they proceed to beat them up meaninglessly, much to the puzzlement of the alleged suspect. The police must be trained to arrest, protect, and thats pretty much it. They are not jury or judge. They are simply the executive branch of government.


I am not a big fan of nationalising anything in Iraq either. Let private Iraqi citizens be the ones who expand, develop and sell oil, or any other commodity. The minute the government begins to nationlise stuff, its a slippery slope, with no end in sight.

Anyway, I am done venting.

Oh - and I forgot to add - I have noticed whenever any sort of question regarding New Iraq's government comes up, almost everyone starts off with: "Well, the sunnis want this, " "the shias want that" "the kurds will do this" blah blah blah blah.

And why? I do not even know why there is such interest as to how much hair the next leader of Iraq has on his back due to his ethnicity? Why does it matter? This is why the constitution I crudely outlined above should also be color-blind. Your city of origin, ethnic identity and favourite kurdish singer should have nothing to do with how you are to govern the country.

What is there to lament about if we all agree on a p_e_r_s_o_n elected to follow the *constitution*, and do just that?

A color-blind government, with a color blind constitution is what we need - so when you look at some candidate for office, look at his CV, accomplishments, criminal history, and qualifications - not at his sunni-like mustache, or kurdish necklace around his neck.


No to Iraq becoming an affirmative action sharade!

Islam versus Democracy
By Alan Caruba
Dec 1, 2003, 00:26

The following article has been selected as one of the "Best of MichNews 2003." This article first appeared in the June 20, 2003 edition of MichNews.com.

The United States is now charged by the world to “rebuild” Iraq. In its 5,000-year history, Iraqis have never played any role in the governance of their nation and the past three decades of ruthless and barbaric rule by Saddam Hussein have not prepared them for this task. The United States may get the electricity going in Iraq and repair its water and sewage systems, but whether it can get Iraqis to adopt a constitutionally based democratic government will prove a difficult, if not impossible, task.

Among Muslims, only the Turks have experienced any form of self-rule and that was the result of a remarkable man, Ataturk, who literally forced them to accept westernization. In doing so, he imposed a strict divide between Islam and the governing of Turkey. This has been maintained only because the Turkish military has judiciously stepped in time and again to crush any Islamist party seeking to impose the Islam’s system of rule.

The religion of Islam and democracy are totally incompatible. Only the separation of church and state, only the rule of civil law can grant Muslims—the vast majority of whom are good, decent people---the freedom they want and many Muslims, such as those in Iran, do want it.

more;
Islam versus Democracy

As an American, I want to tell the Iraquis I have enjoyed your posts. I believe you will indeed have a democracy with freedom for everyone. Good luck.

Islam is incompatible with the rule of a country. Islam is a religion, and is between a person and god.

That is why there must be a strict separation of mosque and state.

Free arab

What about the problems with terrorism how would you deal with the attacks that are occuring in iraq everyday.

Also as for democracy in arab world

There are other examples of islamic democracies eg Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan as well as turkey

alan

I don't know much about Indonesia and Malaysia, other than Malaysia is run by a guy who was ranting a few weeks ago about how the Jews rule the world, and that Islamic nations should get more into science in order to develop weapons to destroy them.

In Turkey, the separation between mosque and state is maintained by the army -- which can and has deposed democratically elected leaders to that end. Pakistan, I believe, is currently run by a military officer who was not elected, but took power in a bloodless coup. He keeps promising democratic elections for the position, but none have actually materialized. I don't think those two can really be considered true democracies, though they're not quite military juntas, either.

http://www.aljeeran.net/viewarticle.php?id...pg=index&art=mp



تقرير مهم للمعارض المصري الدكتور سعد الدين ابراهيم .

Important report by Egyptian Ibn Khaldoon center.. Run by Dr. Saadaldeen ibrahim. Talking about the progress in Iraq democratic infrastructure during that last year under occupation

That is an important point.

Foreign conquerors always try to find the groups that can be turned against each other. If you hate each other more than you hate them, they have an easy time ruling you. Sunni/shi'ite/kurd are the groups that the CIA Factbook lists as important. To the extent that they are right, to the extent that you are loyal to your group and distrust the other groups, they can try to control you that way.

I thought it was interesting that when a letter that was signed (forged?) by Zaraqawi said that sunnis should fight the shi'ites while they fought the americans, and later claimed to have set a bomb that killed shi'ites, al Sadr said it was a fake. I don't know whether he was right about who faked it, but he refused to blame sunnis. So that looks like a very good start.

Still, whoever has enough numbers to be important that you don't trust, is an issue for a democracy. There are procedures to help with the problem, and they tend to cause more problems.

For example, when the USA was first started they invited 13 states to join. Some of them were much bigger than others. Some of them started because of religious intolerance in other states. In a simple democracy the small states would lose, everything would be decided by the big states unless opinion in big states was split so much that voters (or their representatives) in small states became important. So the US Constitution was made to reduce those fears. We had two parliaments, a Senate and a House of Representatives. Delegates to the House each represented roughly the same number of voters. A state that had 5 times as many voters would get 5 times as many representatives to vote for them. So large states got their way in the House. In the Senate every state no matter how small got two senators. And every new law had to pass both parliaments or it failed. So large states could block anything they didn't like, and small states could too. So even today, Rhode Island, a tiny state with very few people, has two senators and 2% of the votes in the Senate.

However, the issue of slavery was harder. They did not have a senate for slave states to block laws that would hurt them. Instead states that had slavery insisted they must somehow get 50% of the votes. Every time a new "free" state was added to the country they insisted there must be a new "slave" state to balance it.And when that precarious balance finally failed, the government collapsed and we had a very bloody civil war.

Similarly in lebanon the christians did not trust a moslem majority, and rather than drive them insane with worry the moslems agreed to delay the census that would show the christians were a minority. They pretended to have 50% of the votes. And finally when the israelis pushed at it a little the system collapsed into civil war.

There must be some way for large minorities to get a veto -- provided they are truly large minorities that truly fear they will be cut out of the democratic process. Do you have minorities like that?

There should be some way for small minorities to feel safer from the majority. If there are enough small minorities they can band together, they all depend on each other. There might be some way they can have a veto. The trouble is that they will demand that you can't ever take away their special abilities, and if the nation is successful then a hundred years later they might not need them at all but they'll still have them.

Still it is safer to give people the right to *stop* things than to give them the right to *start* things.

So, can you afford a completely color-blind government? If so you are better off than if you can't handle that. But if you can't afford it then you must find some way to reassure your minorities that you will not be allowed to abuse them. Not just that you have good will, but that twenty years later when you have been replaced by some young hothead the rules will still get in his way.

If sunni/shi'ite/kurd are not that kind of split, do you have some other split that you need to soothe? Other people who feel they are permanent minorities, who will be usually outvoted by the majority? So much of your population is urban, would the farmers feel left out?

That was a nice post "guest". I look forward to more dialog on the board as the transition in Iraq is underway.

IMO, it's a tribal decision;
A tribe (most likely) has both urban and farmer representitives in their rank and file voting block. Is that true ?
Of course, my question is directed for those inside Iraq.

Just the same, the intermediate step is cast in stone for "Sovereign Iraq " to step in and grab the country "By its own bootstraps" sort to speak.

Guess all eyes could be on the Afghanistan vote results later in September as a standard ?
They have to decide alog tribal lines where they intend to take their govt.

I think we in the west need to drop the negative association with the words "tribal positioning" and see the tribes as their own house of representatives.
We in the west expect tribal revenge,not mutual respect will result.
Iraqi's need to proove westerners wrong.
Like it or not, that is how I see the likely direction chosen after January 2005.
Not sure how,or if, those tribal districts would be gerrymandered but without a doubt,it will not reflect the two party system in the United States has evolved into.
We need to accept that as their decision and position ourselves as benovolent observers,out of direct site,tucked away in various isolated no-mans-land locations until requested to downsize by those that have currently stated to the UN our presence is required.

The era of mutual trust is underway.

It could be argued Saddam was a relic of Cold War posturing.
and
If I may quote a famous slogan used by Ronald Reagan in his dealings during the Cold War with the Soviet Union ;

"Trust,but verify."

Iraqi's are depending on our word as much as we wish to exit as no better friend.

Airdale,
Thanks refering us to this interesting web site.. I am quoting from same site , the article
Muqtatda vis vis Shia




I used to live in Iraq during the early 90's and had the chance to live with most of the incidents that the writer is talking about . While the writer is trying his best to reflect what had happened from out side, I can tell some lightly different story..

Alsaer Father never had the chance to be nonminated as grand MArjei, It is true that he got a lot of follwers within Iraq , especially among the poor non educated class, but never been considered as the grand marjie of Shia in Najaf.
It might be worth mentioning a story here. that after the mistyrious car crash kill in 1993, of The Gran Ayatolla Alkhuee " The father of the Majeed KHuaee, who was killed in Najaf last year".. And during the process of nominating the next Grand Marjea, The planted Sadamees students in Alhawza were very active to lobby for Alyatoolah Mohamed sadiq Alsader.. Based on the leadership vacume of Shia Iraqi inside Iraq after the 91 uprise crash, Alsader striked a non announced deal with governement of sadam to let him work "more freely" .. The goverment gave him the authirity of issueing student visa residency, a crucial for all those marjeaa to keep their students in Najaf, also keep the security police away from his activities.

Within the Alhawza, that was a great suspecious acts. Though the Sader is a well known opponent to Sadam and been jailed for years at Abo Ghraib, a lot of Iraqi Shia who are followers of the traditional leadership were not feeling confort to this progress.
However, Systani was nominated by Al futhala " Cardinals " commity. dispite the great push by Sadammes, who can't pentrate to this commity easily. The commity is composed of all those second rank scholars in Hawaz, and you migh need tens of years of study and research work before being blessed by some Ayatulla to be considered as legitamit Futhala. Some thing that usuall Sadamee's agents can't survive.

Ayatollah Alsader used that window to expand within the poor and the non well educated. He started to preach the Jumaa prayer in Kufa grat mosque out side Najaf, as grand Marjea not accepted it in najaf. Jumaa prayer is not allowed in Islam under tyrant power controll. That was Alsader's way of rebuilding the shia confidence after 91 crash.. He had succeded in bringing in so many Iraqi Shia .
Late 90's Alsader, for some unknown reason, started to reflux his muscles and started compainging of asking for some political rights.. When the governemnt reflect harshly, he changed his tone to condem USA and Isreal, something considered as a very clever move of condeming Sadaam regim, which was widely considered within Iraqis as a puppit of CIA.

While alsader suceeded within the poor of Kufa, Najaf and Alsader city and some other places in south Iraq, he never succeded within the tribal traditional system in and around Njaf who maintained their respect to the Marjiea of Alsyatani. In Shia Islam, there is no such position as the Catholic Pop, That all should follow one person as leader, any Shia can choose any one or mix of Marajea to respect their opinion and he have all the religious right sto change his Marjea in some or all issues.

Alsader inherited his father political influance not the religiuos one. He is too young to claim any religouse authirity.
Imeadiatly after the fall of Sadam, Alsader party was parctically the only one active inside Iraq.With the support of some Arab anti American media such as Suadi Alrabia satellite TV coverage, the young Moqtada started filling the vacume benifiting from the blockage that the Americans put on SRCI and Dawa parties to enter Iraq.
Alsader choosed to raise anti US slogans that intensified after the nomination of Iraq GC.However, the pro liberation patriot feeling was so strong within Shia population, that many of those Alsader follwers found it difficult to carry on.

By time the vacumme was refilled with all Alsystani, SRCI and Dawa and Alsader started to loose most of his influence with the poor.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticl...66§ion=news

One assembly, proportional representation. You can run as an individual if you get a petition with 500 names. Run as a party and you present a list, depending on how many votes you get the top names on the list win.

Basicly the israeli system, also similar to various european governments.

It's a good system. Lots of little parties that make fragile coalitions. One weakness, when a crisis comes up that requires an unpopular decision, the government tends to fall apart. Notice israel, which can fight very effectively since they just do it without much knesset input, but which consistently fails to make peace because any particular peace plan is almost sure to offend enough members of the coalition that they block it or they leave.

If the USA had a system like that we probably wouldn't be occupying iraq today.

They think you'll need 25,000 or so votes to win a seat. But that could be off. Maybe more people will vote than usual, so it will take more votes. Or maybe a lot of little hopeless parties will siphon off a lot of votes so you can win easier this time than ever again.

Who in iraq is likely to get 25,000 to 50,000 votes? They must be known and not seem evil.

Got this by email, don't know if it is real one

>Letter from Barzani and Talabani to President Bush
>
>June 1, 2004, His Excellency President George W. Bush
>President of the United States of America
>The White House
>Washington, DC
>
>Dear Mr. President:
>
>We are writing this letter to your Excellency to present our views and
>concerns on the new Iraqi Interim Government, the Kurdish position and the
>future of the country.
>
>America has no better friend than the people of Iraqi Kurdistan. A year
>ago, our peshmerga forces fought side by side with the American forces for
>the liberation of Iraq, taking more casualties than any other US ally.
>Today, Kurdistan remains the only secure and stable part of Iraq. We note
>that, in contrast to the Arab areas of Iraq, no coalition soldier has been
>killed in the area controlled by the Kurdistan Regional Government.
>
>The people of Kurdistan continue to embrace American values, to welcome US
>troops, and to support your program for the liberation of Iraq. Our
>Kurdistan Regional Government has given up many of its current freedoms in
>the interest of helping your administering authorities reach compromises
>with other Iraqis. We were therefore bitterly disappointed when your
>special representative advised us that a Kurd could be neither Prime
>Minister nor President of Iraq. We were told that these positions must go
>to a Shiite Arab and Sunni Arab respectively.
>
>Iraq is a country of two main nationalities, Arabs and Kurds. It seems
>reasonable that the Arabs might get one of the top jobs (of their choice)
>but then the other should go to a Kurd.
>
>We also believe the decision to use sectarian quotas for the top two jobs
>directly contradicts the Coalition's repeatedly stated position that
>democratic Iraq's government should not be based on ethnic or religious
>criteria, a position the US wrote into the Transitional Administrative Law.
>
>The people of Kurdistan will no longer accept second-class citizenship in
>Iraq. In Saddam's time and before, Kurds were frequently given the Vice
>President or deputy positions, which were window dressing without power. We

>had hoped the new Iraq would be different for the Kurdish people.
>
>Ever since liberation, we have detected a bias against Kurdistan from the
>American authorities for reasons that we cannot comprehend. At the outset
>of the occupation, the coalition seized the oil-for-food revenues that had
>been specifically earmarked for Kurdistan and redistributed them to the
>rest of Iraq-in spite of the fact that Kurdistan received far less of these

>revenues per capita than other Iraqis and notwithstanding the fact that our

>region was the one most destroyed by Saddam Hussein. CPA actively
>discouraged the equality of the Kurdish and Arabic languages, and
>repeatedly tried to aEURoederecognizeaEUR™ the Kurdistan Regional
Government
>(Iraq's only elected government ever) in favor of a system based on
>Saddam's 18 governorates. US officials have demeaned the peshmerga, calling

>this disciplined military force that was America's battlefield comrade in
>arms, aEURoemilitia.aEUR? In official statements, it is rare for the US
>government or the CPA even to refer to Kurdistan or the Kurdish people.
>
>We will be loyal friends to America even if our support is not always
>reciprocated. Our fate is too closely linked to your fortunes in Iraq. If
>the forces of freedom prevail elsewhere in Iraq, we know that, because of
>our alliance with the United States, we will be marked for vengeance. We do

>ask for some specific reassurance for this transitional period so as to
>enable us to participate more fully in the interim government.
>specifically, we ask that:
>
>The Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) be incorporated into the new UN
>Security Council Resolution or otherwise recognized as law binding on the
>transitional government, both before and after elections. If the TAL is
>abrogated, the Kurdistan Regional Government will have no choice but to
>refrain from participating in the central government and its institutions,
>not to take part in the national elections, and to bar representatives of
>the central Government from Kurdistan.
>
>The United States commit to protect the people and government of Kurdistan
>in the event insurrection and disorder lead to a withdrawal from the rest
>of Iraq.
>
>The Coalition carry through on commitments to reverse the Arabization of
>Kurdish lands and move forward to settle the status of Kirkuk in accordance

>with the wishes of its people, excluding settlers but including those
>ethnically cleansed by Saddam Hussein.
>
>The oil-for-food revenues unfairly taken from Kurdistan last year be
>restored in the entirety, and that Kurdistan receive its per capita share
>of the $19 billion in reconstruction assistance appropriated by the
>Congress.
>
>The United States support our plans to own and manage Kurdistan's natural
>resources, and in particular our efforts to develop new petroleum resources

>in the Kurdistan Region, where the previous regime sought to block all
>exploration and development that might benefit the Kurdistan people.
>
>The United States open a consulate in Irbil, and that it encourage other
>coalition partners to do the same. For the people of Kurdistan, it is vital

>that we maintain our direct links to the outside world and not solely
>dependent on a Baghdad where we are not considered fully equal citizens.
>
>The United States and the United Nations state clearly that the use of
>ethnic and confessional criteria for the selections of the interim
>government does not set a precedent for a future Iraqi government, and that

>Kurds are eligible for the posts of Prime Minister and President.
>
>If ethnic criteria are to be used to exclude Kurds from the top two
>positions in the interim government, we think it fair that Kurdistan be
>compensated with a disproportionate share of relevant ministries in the
>interim government.
>
>Mr. President, we know that these are difficult days for all of us who
>believe the cause of Iraq's freedom was worth fighting for. The Kurdish
>people continue to admire your confident leadership, your vision of a free
>Iraq, and your personal courage. We are certain that you will agree that
>Kurdistan should not be penalized for its friendship and support for the
>United States.
>
>Sincerely yours,
>
>Masoud Barzani
>Kurdistan Democratic Party
>
>Jalal Talabani
>Patriotic Union of Kurdistan

Very interesting article by Secretary Wolfowitz, published in the world street joural on june 10th.
Here below the arabic version, I could get the link to the English one..

http://www.elaph.com.:9090/elaph/arabic/index.html

Interestingly he had quoted many Iraqi bloggers..

http://www.alrafidayn.com/Story/News/N_17_10_04_22.html

In Arabic, report in Alrafidian Iraqi news. Grouwing signs that the three factions Kurds/shia/sunni Arab might go to ellections in seperate ..
Altabani said that he will go in a united list with Barazani.. A shia representative of Aldawa party told the news that there is talks with SIRH about going together ..

Have a look to http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0930-15.htm

Thought the article is so gloomy, The last staement summrized all the issue.. It is a battel with with all Iraqi ani freedom.. Are we going to let the terrorist win this battel?
The forieger writer is expressing all the fears that he might experienced, the question is do Iraqis want the ellections.. ? The last poll showed about 80% would like to go for it.. Is that telling us any thing.. These are the one who live under the circumstances that the writer is talking about, why do they dare risking their lifes asking for ellection? the answer as I see it is that this is the best way to defeat the terrorists..
Are we going to help Iraqis , or help terror?

http://www.daralhayat.com/arab_news/levant....txt/story.html

In Arabic.. The Islamic "Suni" party in Iraq warring the Sunni Scholar committe from bycotting the Ellection.. The part warned that this might degrade the sunni representation in the new parlmant..
The pary added that the ellection will happen as there is a greater push by international powers to accept any result by the ellection. The Sunnis might miss last chance if they insist on bycotting it

http://www.alrafidayn.com/Story/Articles/Ar25_10_04_5.html

In Arabic.. A writer bring attention to similarity between Serb's opposition to ellection with Sadam's clergy apposition for ellection in Iraq..

I am an American who has tried desperately to understand what is happening in Iraq. I have looked to many sources: news services, weblogs, forums, etc., but I must admit that I am still unsure about what is the "right" thing for my government to do.

I believe that president Bush lied and manufatured reasons to go to war in Iraq. I believe his true intention has always been to establish a stable democracy in the heart of the Middle East. It seems to me that Bush himself honestly believes that accomplishing this task would be a tremendous benefit to the Iraqi people as well as the USA by virtue of having a politcal ally in the region. I do NOT believe that Bush went to war in hopes of achieving financial gain. I think the opinion that we went to war in Iraq in order to get cheap/free oil is simply ridicualous, given the cost of the war efforts.

But regardless of Bush's intentions, I would like to see some sort of result that benefits the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, I have no idea what you Iraqis really want. It seems that the most vocal among you want the US forces out of Iraq, no matter what the cost. You are willing to kill as many innocent people as it takes for you to get your way. If this is the true face of the Iraqi people, then I say to badWord with you. Let us take our troops back home so that Iraq can become the world capital of people who hate the USA. You can have the worst USA-hating government on the planet. Then when you establish terrorist training camps all over your country, we will send more bombs than you can imagine. You know this is what could happen if the "insurgents" take over.

But as I said, it is difficult for me to understand what Iraqis really want, because I see such a variety of opinions. There are voices coming out in favor of democracy, but they are not nearly as loud as the voices of those who want us to leave. I get the impression that most Iraqis are afraid to speak their true opinons. Do many of you agree with the insurgents because you are afraid of them? Maybe we need to tell our troops over there to be more violent and threatening to your citizens. Because if you are more afraid of our troops than you are of the insurgents, then maybe you will say that you support democracy.

Whatever happens in Iraq, I think it will ultimately be up to the Iraqi people. If you want the insurgents to rule you, then either support them or remain quiet. Both are pretty much the same. If you want democracy, you are going to have to stand up and be heard over the sound of explosions and screaming hostages.

As I said, I am an American who has tried hard to understand what you want, and I honestly can't tell. Most Americans don't really try. Most Americans read about poeple getting bombed and kidnapped, and don't bother to find out anything else. Most Americans think Iraqis are violent, USA-hating animals, and think we should just get our troops home as soon as we can.

-Imp

improvius,
The simple answer is hiding under the fact that you just mentioned:

MOST VOCAL , indeed you are only allowed to hear the most vocal.. I am an Iraqi American, I am following the American media and would not blame you saying all what you consider as absolute facts, without even care to double checking if they are correct.. Thanks to the media that made you so confident in what they fed.

Just to check your understandings , did you asked your self the following questions:
If Iraqis are really what you had mentioned, then :
1- Why are there so long queues of young men and women in front of military registration offices, despite the routine killing and bombing ?
2-Why are majory of Iraqis, at least 80% , not against liberation thought came with occupation.. That is in a country where the world occupation, means the most bad thing in the universe, more bad than what ever "badword " that you might thought of.
3- Why Same majority are going for democracy and would not be scared to be killed while voting, considering election as it's corner step.

There many other questions..
I think your question might better re-phrased to be
Why the majority is not vocal.. And also why American media, just like the Arab media is not telling the real story about Iraqis. ?
Let me know first if you thought about the three points above, then I will try to explain my answers to later questions

http://www.elaph.com/Politics/2004/10/18125.htm

In Arabic.. Very intersting report about the unbelievable preparations for elections by different Iraqi parties.. Huge work and coalitions ..
A lot that no one is hearing about in the libral American and arab nationalist media!!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/10/2...tion/index.html

The Afghan elections.. Karazai won at 54%
On other "Traditional" Arab election.. Pres. Bin Ali of Tunis, won 94% votes..
The Arab media was very funny in covering bot.. The Egyptian governmental media , called the Tunisian legitamate, while doubted the Afghani..
What a funny!!

I am just an ordinary American. I go to work 5 days a week, I try to relax and have some fun on the weekend. I am married, have 3 grown kids and 3 grandkids. I was in the US military when the Vietnam conflict ended. The bank and I have a house and 2 cars. My wife and I both work technology related jobs. I am jewish and my wife is christian. We like to travel, and we are currently sponsoring 2 teachers from Pakistan that are studying in our area, and yes they are muslim. I have sent paperback books to US soldiers to read and I have sent toys, colored pencils and paper to Iraq for Iraqi children. That is my background, and who I am.

I have great hopes for Iraq, and frankly for all people of the world, though I recognize how very hard it is to face all the decisions we, (people and nations) have to make. Yes, I would like to see Iraq succeed, and I will even say it would be somewhat to fly in the face of all those around the world who said Iraq isn't ready and/or capable of democratic rule of herself.

What I really wanted to do was send the Iraqi people a message, but I know I can't really get it out there. This is as close as I can get.

We can't make freedom for you. You have to make it happen. Help it happen. and allow it to happen. You can't sit and wait for it to happen, or it won't.

As you have noticed, I don't sit in Washington making policy, but I don't see any way that we went to Iraq to be occupiers. It isn't our way, it isn't our wishes, but we do need to be there a while.

Try to be patient with us. We don't have all the answers, we don't even know all the questions. My personal expectations are that to have a democratic Iraq be successful it will take at least 5 years.

If the US really went to Iraq for the oil we would just be taking it, not selling it in the name of the Iraqi people on the open market.

If the war was only about cheap oil, the US could have worked to lift the embargo. I am feel sure Saddam if left in power would have been pumping all he could produce to make that money pour into his pockets, (even if not those of his nation).

When bad people blow up a pipeline, they aren't really hurting the US, we have many other markets open to us, though we might pay a little more. It is really hurting the Iraqi reconstruction efforts.

I am sure the US didn't go to Iraq only concerned about her WMDs, but I am sure they were part of the situation.

Those who are not revisionist and look back will find that in 1999 the UN thought Saddam had WMDs, President Clinton thought Saddam had WMDs, the world community thought Saddam had WMDs, and British and American intlligence services thought he had, and I feel pretty sure Iran thought Saddam had WMDs. It didn't really matter in some ways that he didn't, he wouldn't let it be verified, and I think he was purposefully playing enough games to keep the world guessing.

I frankly doubt that many will miss Saddam, only his cronies in power, and those whose pockets he was lining.

I am not a true student of history, but I have read a book or two. Although the war in Europe was officially over in 1945, there were still isolated pockets of violence and guerilla activity until 1947 in Europe, not counting the wars of independence that were touched off in the aftermath of WWII.

Furthermore, if I am remembering correctly the American Revolution which began in 1776 lasted until 1781, at least 5 years, and I don't think everything was ratified by the individual states until 1783.

I have read of the many atrocities commited on both sides of that conflict as well. Blood and feelings ran high. Loyalists to the British crown burned barns and killed cattle belonging to their rebel neighbors as well as shot and hung them, and vice versa. Many loyalists packed up and moved to England during the conflict due to concerns for their security. Rebels were hunted down by the British and Hessian, (German mercenary) troops and killed. Loyalist and rebel families were threatened for the actions and beliefs of other family members. Families were kicked out of their homes and made to live in unheated barns while occupying British and Hessian troops lived in their homes and ate their food, in a time when you didn't just go to the market to get more, it might be until next harvest. Roadside ambushes were not uncommon.

This may sound more familiar to our Iraqi friends as what they have seen in their country than it does to most Americans, as our history books tend to gloss it over now. Perhaps because the British are still our good friends and allies, and the Germans are our friends, if not the allies at the moment.

I guess the message I am trying to give is to hang on and work toward your freedom. It can happen, and even if it is not smooth sailing, it is still possible. It was not so neat and clean and easy here as some might think. Blood was spilled and lives were ruined.

I even think I read the American statesman Benjamin Franklin's son was a loyalist govenor of New Jersey and fled to England before the end of the war and father and son did not speak thereafter. Don't quote me on this, this is just a recollection. Do some research.

What I know for sure is not possible is for the US to "win Iraqi freedom" and then hand it to you. We do want to extend a hand of friendship and hope that together we can make the world a better and safer place, for all of us and our children. We surely can't do it on our own, or even with a coalition of outsiders. Iraq has to work from within to help it happen.

Yes we will make mistakes. We will trust the wrong people some of the time, we will believe the wrong information some of the time, and this will make us distrustful of all Iraqis at times.

Yes we will make mistakes concerning your culture, we are mostly ignorant of it, but we can't learn it without your assistance. You will meet Americans who are not the best of people when their superiors aren't looking, but we will see them in your culture as well I think. In this way, people are people.

Rodi

Ron,

I don't have to answer your kind and turstful call, more than what is mentioned on this website.. You need to revisit your understanding about what is going on in Iraq.. Most Iraqis, as polls showed, are as per your expectation..
They have one issue though. For some time they felt that the American might not be serious about democracy in Iraq. However, with Americans voted to Bush , that fear was kind of lessen. Iraqis are working hard to defeat terrorists by establishing the first Arab real democratic free state..
Below is a link , in Arabic, hope that I have time to translate. It is a report from Iraq talking about Iraqis .. Most of them are considering Bush as trustful librator.. Minority though , specially who lost power, considering him like Hulague.

http://www.alrafidayn.com/Story/News/N_04_11_04_33.html

http://www.alrafidayn.com/Story/News/N_04_11_04_34.html

In Arabic.. Intersting report.. The british embassedor to Iraq met Shikh Alnasiree.. What is intersting is that Shiekh Alnasree is one of most respected clergy in Nasria , south Iraq..
Alnasree reportedly talked about the upset by people seeing the coalition undermining the people in the south..

What this guy says, this is not true. Most Americans do not think that Iraqis are violent, American-hating animals. I want everyone who reads this board to understand that this is not a true statement.

The Americans who do think this way do not understand or believe what this war is about and why the US is in Iraq. These people still do not understand that this war is against Saddam Hussein, the Ba'ath regime, and anyone else who is trying to prevent Iraq from becoming a democracy. This is what GWB said, and we agree with him, 58 million of us. (I said it even before GWB, but I was not president.)

Most Americans believe, in their heart of hearts (as we say), that it was necessary and correct to remove Saddam Hussein (may he rot) and that Iraq would prosper and be happy after we did that. Most Americans believe that this will be better for us, too, no matter what Iraq should choose afterwards. It is better for 25 million people to live freely and not under a dictator. It is better for the world.

Still, I want to say, it is good that he asks what you think. You know that our newspapers and TV are very biased and we do not hear from Iraq directly except through the internet.

To some of us, democracy in Iraq is so important that it was the only thing guiding our vote.

The people who voted for Kerry, they are thinking very simplistically because they refuse to understand the reason for the war.

I have heard so many of the Kerry-voters say that "dumb people voted for Bush because they don't care about the war."

This is funny, isn't it? But very sad. How do you reason with such people.

http://www.alrafidayn.com/Story/News/N_06_11_04_1.html

In Arabic.. A very important development.. The six member high Shia commitee, reached agreement among all Shia factions and parties to entre the ellection in one National list.
Their will be 50% non party members, the other 50% will be devided as follows
10% for Alsader party
12% for SRCI, including the Modersee partee
10% for Aldawa "Inside"
10% for Aldawa "Aljaafree"
8% for the Shia house "Alchalabee, Bahraloum and others"

There some reports that Chrestian "Cldan. Ashuree, Armen..etc" and Turkman and Yazedees will participate in this list.. Also there is a very strong support for it from the very strong Sunni Arab tribal leader Shiekh Fawaz Alshemeree in Mousol.That is after his visit to Alsystani last week.
Also there are rumers that The strong Sunni Clergy association might joine the national list!

Yesterday in an interview with CNN world service, Palistanian Mr. bari Atwan was talking about situation in Palistine after Yser Arafat.. He was strongly recommending an ellection to chose succesur for Arafat.. He said any appointed leader will be not good for future of middel east.

On other interviews with Aljezera and on his London newspaper Alqudus, He is opposing ellection in Iraq, based on the issue of Iraq being under occpation.

The interviewer did ask him why the case is different in Palistine..
May be he doesn't consider Iraeli presence in Plalestine as occupation though!!!
Any one know

بالامس وفي مقابله لسي ان ان "الانكليزي" مع السيد عبد الباري عطوان , دعا وبشده الى ضروره اجراء انتخابات لاختيار خليفه للسيد عرفات.
موضحا ان اسلوب تعيين الخليفه الجديد سيكون مضرا بمستقبل العمليه السياسيه.

عبد الباري ومن على الجزيره و صحيفته اللندنيه " القدس" كان قد وقف بشده امام اجراء انتخابات في العراق بحجه ان العراق تحت الاحتلال.
لم يساله المقدم عن سبب اختلاف الامر في الحاله الفلسطينيه..
ربما ,السيد عطوان لا يعتبر الوجود الاسرائيلي احتلالا, ربما
هل هناك من بعرف الجواب؟

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/07/internat...lection.html?th

About Ellection and parties preparations

http://www.nahrain.com/d/news/04/11/07/nhr1107a.html
In Arabic.. The rules for Govenators ellection s

http://www.aljeeran.net/viewarticle.php?id...pg=index&art=mp

In Arabic.. Translation of newyork times article above..

One problem is that Bush has never been honest with us (Americans) about the reason for the war. You can't expect us to understand when we are never told the truth.

-Imp

Imp,
If you go back to what Bush had said about war justification, you might find
- Get rid of Dectatorship of Saddam
-Bringing democracy to Iraq, as a step to move to the whole middel east
-WDM

Those who accuse Pres. Bush of lying were relying on the third point after no WDM had been found. They never arguing the other two because they thing that these two should never be a real causes for a realistic American forgin policy.
Here is the catch,
-For the WDM, it was not only Bush who thought of Saddam having it. Democrats imposed sanctions that had killed one million Iraqis over ten years on that bases which turned to be faulse. Did any libral scholar put that as a point against democrats? Is it because one milion life of Iraqi civilians not important as lifes of one thousan American soldier? The answer is not. Every one, even Saddam himself, were believing that he had WDMs. All evidences showed that .

-For the democracy point.. Librals and radicals, were accuasing Bush of having it as excuse. Then when it turned to be real , as is the case now in Iraq, they just ignore it as a possible objectives of the war. They even start to compaining against it, having so many excuses..

Can you please let know where didn't Bush tell the truth ?

http://www.sotaliraq.com/newiraq/article_2004_11_8_2732.html
In Arabic.. By an expatriot Iraqi scholar , Sabah Dara, replying on a call by the Iraqi Lawers commitee secretary. The Secretary Mr. Aallo"an former Saddamee" had denouced in Alzaman factionist londen newspaper ,the decision by the elelction commitee to allow expatriot Iraqis to participate in the eelection.. He accuased the four millions expatriots as being "suspected" figures. Mr. Allao wanted ellection to be a grant for only those who had the goverment sanction card.
During Sanctions, UN had reached to agreement with Saddam to distribut the oil-against-food revenue as bonuse through a government card. All those who opposed the regime and those outside Iraq were blocked from getting that card!!

Many of us believe that we should not go to war unless there is a serious threat to our own country. Bush tried to convince us of that, when in reality it seems like Iraq was not much of a threat at all. I know his real goal was to transform Iraq into a democratic ally. But he never presented it as such.

-Imp

Fully understanig your point.. However, do you think that he really thought that Saddam mightn't have WDM..?
I don't think any one did, including Mr. Kerry who agreed on the war as a way to force saddam to get rid of them.

He might be mislead , as all other were. But not misleading.
You might say that he was using it as excuse for the other objective.. My question is what is wrong with it? Are you against bringing democracy to middel east.. ? 100% of those who hit us in 9/11 were comming from ME. Isn't the fixing of that region dynamics a critical part of the total solution? So why not hitting one bird with two stones in one shot!!!

Bush has always been honest about the reasons for the war. He never presented Iraq, per se, as a threat to the US. He presented Saddam Hussein as a threat to us, and not as a direct threat, but rather because SH was a source of instability and anti-American sentiment, not to mention connections to many terrorist groups, ACKNOWLEDGED BY BOTH PARTIES IN CONGRESS.

Moreover, SH was the unfinished business. How do you convince the world that you can & will defeat the terrorists, if you leave SH untouched? The US came to the aid of its ally Kuwait in 1991, and honored its obligation to that country, but then left SH in power, so that he could still claim he won that war. With him still in power, who could believe that the US had the will to destroy Al Qaeda?

The fever swamp of the left-Democrats has refused to believe that Bush meant EXACTLY what he said. That fever swamp has fallen prey to increasingly bizarre conspiracy theories, which is why the Democrats lost BIG TIME. The Democrats will not return to office until they throw out the conspiracy theories and embrace reality. 58 million Americans say so.

Improv,

Bush & his administration told the American people many times that it was good, desirable, and morally correct to transform Iraq into a representative government. If you did not hear this, it is because you had your fingers in your ears.

***
For my part, I think that if Iraq becomes a close ally, that is good for us, but not necessary. I want only for Iraq to be a safe & good place for its people. It is true that democracies do not go to war with each other and also democracies do not tolerate terrorists.

http://www.alrafidayn.com/Story/News/N_08_11_04_10.html

In arabic.. An interview with Muder Shawket the Sunni Arab debuty of Alchalabee.
He thought that Some important figures of Arab Sunni might join what is called now as "Asystani list" He thought that Alawee might loose position in the next ellection.

Very intersting post by Zyad

http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/

http://www.asharqalawsat.com/default.asp?p...3335&issue=9470

In Arabic.. Intersting article from inside Iraq by Iraqi scholar Dr. Habib.. Talking about the new life of Iraqis discussing the ellection.. Rather than hearing the call for ramadan practices only, mosques are preaching for ellection and the necessity of women participation..

I was watching a Charle rose program on TV meeting with three academic scholar that were not with the ellection.. Here is my take about some of their points
1-Sunni Arabs are not with ellection because they know that elelction makes Shia majority rullling the country : My take is why aren't Sunni Kurds who are smaller minority than Arab sunni, believing this way.. Having in mind that for kurds this issue might be bigger, as 80% are Arabs.

2-By ellections, we really make Shia Iraq stronger, some thing that would work for benefits of the Iranians..
My take: Which Iranians? those in power or the majority of Irain Shia that are against the regim? Those in power are looking for growing Najaf rule in Shia faith as a very dengrouse development. That is why they are trying their best to encourage instability in Iraq.. Those who oppose the regime find the democratic progress in Iraq as their opportuinity for better future..

3- Iraqis don't have faith in the current ellection legimacy, so why we are going this way? the main reason is to bring a legitemate government. something that would not happen under such feeling.
My take: which Iraqis , the 10% Sadamees and Salafees or the 90% other Iraqis.. Those who have no faith in elelction as a milestone for getting into a legitamate government are same who commit all the terror acts.. Are you saying that for the sake of this 10% we should block the 90% from their rights?

4- Iraqi society is so fragmented and the ellection will for faith not for nation..So democracy in Iraq will never fly.. A theocratic or monarachy is the solution for Iraq..
My take: we tried both Monrachy and theocratic sytems, what was the result? History of Iraq never never tell on any one accident of clash between factions .. Same tribs have part of them as Shia and part of them Sunni.. Sunnis are both Kurds and Shia....

http://www.nahrain.com/d/news/04/11/10/srq1110h.html

In Arabic..
Alsystani office in London officially denied the news that he is working on managing some Shia list for Shia parties and figures. Mr. Khafaf, talking on belf of the office "one of only three offices that are allowed to talk on behalf of Slsystani" confirmed that all these news are just speculations by media..
Alsystani insisted that he will not support any list and leave to the Iraqi people to decide their representatives.

http://www.nahrain.com/d/news/04/11/15/nhr1115e.html

In Arabic.. About the voting of Iraqis out side Iraq..

http://www.nahrain.com/d/el/mniei.html

In Arabic .. More about it..