Shlonkom Bakazay?

1. Juan Cole's Lebanese history cliff-notes style - a short summary (20 minutes tops)
2. The newest addition at LBF, Mana gives you her first-hand experience at the protests in "Freedom Sqaure"
3. Firas at Thermo-Police gives you perspective with his thoughtful words
4. My new favorite friend in Lebanon blogger, Unfrozen Caveman Linguist with some fleshed-out posts of wisdom
5. Ramzi is another gem of blogger with the best for Lebanon on his mind
6. Mysterious Eve makes mind melt a mode for all that read Arabic
7. Callipyge quotes a protester's sign on listserv, Assad bi Lubnan, arnab bil Julan. Nuff said, lol, check her out.
8. Angry Arab is still angry...perhaps too angry for my taste these days. I believe he's putting little faith in my generation. I still love him, though. He has some important points regardless of your thinking.
   
9. Roy Saad has a first-hand experience of the protests and some things to think about.
10. Window in Lebanon for French speaking first-hand essence of the times
11. The immutable Zounazar with Lebanese activism in a strong Arabic voice
12. Rampurple for another patriot's view from Kuwait
    
13. For more bloggers views check Lebanese Blogger Forum

Avoid loud and aggressive persons,
they are vexations to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain and bitter;
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.

Keep interested in your own career, however humble;
it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs;
for the world is full of trickery.
But let this not blind you to what virtue there is;
many persons strive for high ideals;
and everywhere life is full of heroism.

Be yourself.
Especially, do not feign affection.
Neither be cynical about love;
for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment
it is as perennial as the grass.

Take kindly the counsel of the years,
gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune.
But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings.
Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.
Beyond a wholesome discipline,
be gentle with yourself.

You are a child of the universe,
no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God,
whatever you conceive Him to be,
and whatever your labors and aspirations,
in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world.
Be cheerful.
Strive to be happy.

WHAT IS IRAQ'D?: If you're a pro-war liberal, chances are you're probably feeling burned right now. The case for the Iraq war rested on three pillars: The danger of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, with the clock ticking on a nuclear capability; the danger of Saddam Hussein's connections to Al Qaeda; and the human rights imperative of deposing one of the world's most despicable regimes and assisting newly-freed Iraqis in building a democracy. Well, it turns out that Saddam didn't have much in the way of WMD, or even ongoing WMD programs. And it also appears that his ties to Al Qaeda were tenuous at best. So all that's left for the war rationale is the human-rights-and-democracy argument, which for liberals is intuitively appealing (or should be). But then along comes the Bush administration's November 15 Agreement to relinquish sovereignty by June 30, which tells the Iraqis that, owing to election-year considerations, the United States can't be bothered right now to midwife a democracy. You might say you've been Iraq'd.

And no one is more Iraq'd right now than the Iraqis themselves. It's no accident that, as soon as the Coalition Provisional Authority announced its withdrawal plan, the various Iraqi factions immediately began pressing for their maximal demands: The Kurds want autonomy, an internal militia, and the oil-rich city of Kirkuk; the Shia want direct elections to the body that will assume sovereignty, in order to guard against their disenfranchisement; the Sunnis are resisting elections because they fear disenfranchisement by the numerically-superior Shia; our handpicked Iraqi Governing Council, distrusted by the broader Shia and Sunni populations, is agitating to keep its hold on power. Each faction is fighting hard to impose facts on the ground because it can no longer count on the United States sticking around to ensure that all segments of Iraqi society are represented in a future Iraqi democracy.

One of the premises of Iraq'd is that the U.S. decision to cease nation-building jeopardizes our own national security as well as Iraq's. After all, if we believe that Iraqi democracy would be a model for the region, then the converse is also true: If we leave behind a failing state in Iraq, then we provide Middle Eastern autocrats with a pretext for cracking down on the reformers and liberals in their midst, since they can point to the chaos in Baghdad as the likely fruit of democracy. And since Islamist terrorism feeds in part on Middle Eastern tyranny, then we're in a lot of trouble. Iraq'd will highlight developments in Iraq and the Middle East to call attention to this danger.

A couple of programming notes: This blog is written from Washington. Readers in Iraq are invited to pass along accounts of what's happening on the ground. Readers at home are invited to disagree with any and all of the arguments featured here.

Asma, a young Baghdad engineer, was shopping with relatives when she was forced into a car by six armed men. They took her to a farmhouse outside the city, raped her repeatedly and dumped her back in her neighbourhood the next day.

The incident, which took place in May, 2003, shortly after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq ended, is now commonplace for Iraqi women, says an Amnesty International report titled "Iraq: Decades of suffering, Now women deserve better." "Women and girls in Iraq live in fear of violence as the conflict intensifies and insecurity spirals," it says.

Released yesterday, the report calls on the new Iraqi government to introduce measures that can protect women at a time of escalating crime, religious fanaticism and disorder.

Our people, the Assyrians, the original inhabitants of Iraq - whose empire preceded Babylon, many of whom still speak Aramaic, the language of Christ - have been robbed. Along with other minorities in the north of our country, the Turkmen, the Yezidis and the Shabak, we were promised democracy. But the ballot boxes never arrived. The recent elections simply passed us by, our complaints ignored, our rights trampled, by people who should know better, because we shared their experience of repression under Saddam Hussein. As a result, no Assyrian representatives will be taking their place in the new Iraqi parliament.

Today, as in 1972, the international system has a triangular shape. Then it was the US that outwitted the Soviet Union by making overtures to China. Perhaps it is now Europe's turn to outwit the US by doing the same. Or has George Bush already booked his flight to Beijing?

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. -Nietzsche

America and any new Iraqi government, please be careful.
I do fear that when any new Iraqi government tries to follow up and catch terrorists or any of those whom it thinks are a source of threat, the government will reach a point where it will follow the same techniques that Saddam did in stopping those opposing him.

• London Independent remembers

• His article on Bush in the run-up to the elections.
• A video with Tim Russert [via crooks and liars].
  

It is hard not to see America's focus on human rights in Iran as a cloak for its larger strategic interests.

U.S. Soldiers to Be Given Ecstasy

Back in this country, the Food and Drug Administration has given the go-ahead for soldiers traumatized by their time in Iraq and Afghanistan to be offered the party drug ecstasy to help free them of flashbacks and recurring nightmares. The soldiers would take the drug as part of an experiment to see if MDMA, the active ingredient in ecstasy, can treat post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Pentagon is spending £70 billion [$130 billion] on a programme to build heavily-armed robots for the battlefield in the hope that future wars will be fought without the loss of its soldiers' lives.

The scheme, known as Future Combat Systems, is the largest military contract in American history and will help to drive the defence budget up by almost 20 per cent to just over £265 billion [$500 billion] in five years' time.

America and its key ally Saudi Arabia are being accused of quietly seeking to muzzle al-Jazeera, the Arab satellite news station that has often incurred Washington's ire for its coverage of Iraq and President George Bush's "war on terror".

We knew something was coming. I had met an old journalist colleague for coffee on Saturday and we both said we felt there was a new, menacing atmosphere about Beirut. We didn't mean the sky-high prices and the usual corruption stories, but the incendiary language in which Lebanese politics was now being conducted.

...

Forthcoming elections - and an attempt to change electoral boundaries that might have deprived anti-Syrian factions of parliamentary seats - contrived to heat up the controversy already begun by UN Security Council resolution 1559, principally supported by the Americans and French, which demands the withdrawal of all Syrian troops from Lebanon.

...

The Lebanese have no more appetite for war. The conflict which ended in 1990 destroyed their families and their homes and drained their lives of meaning. A new generation has returned from overseas educations, ambitious, irritated by the continuing sectarianism of official life as much as Syria’s much reduced military presence. But the Syrian intelligence service remains - its headquarters are in the eastern town of Aanjar - and its pursuit of Israeli spies and treachery has become an obsession.

Into this darkening scenario, Mr Hariri cast a wistful eye, seeing no evil and claiming to hear no evil. So what was his real role in the opposition? Was he merely a disinterested onlooker, gazing down from his palace walls at the small men of Lebanese politics as they bickered about gerrymandered political boundaries? Or did he have other ambitions? Yesterday proved that someone believed he did.

Lebanon is built on institutions that enshrine sectarianism as a creed, in which the president must always be a Christian Maronite, the prime minister a Sunni Muslim - like Hariri - and the speaker of parliament a Shia Muslim. Anyone setting out to murder Hariri would know how this could re-open all the fissures of the civil war from 1975 to 1990.

Thousands of weeping followers of Hariri gathered outside his palace at Koreitem last night, demanding to know who had killed their leader. Hariri men toured the streets, ordering shopkeepers to pull down their shutters. Were the ghosts of the civil war to be reawoken from their 15 years of slumber? I do not know the answer. But that black cloud that drifted for more than an hour over Beirut yesterday afternoon darkened the people beneath with more than its shadow.

KEY FINDINGS

** Global media more positive about elections than any development since fall of Baghdad.

** Dailies praise voters for their "courage and determination," term poll "auspicious."

** Still, "a rough road" lies ahead; some fret about possible rise of "Iran-style theocracy."

** Critics label elections "neither free nor fair," say only U.S. withdrawal can lead to peace.

The CIA has been sent to the doghouse. Too many CIA veterans criticized or contradicted Bush's and Cheney's phony claims over Iraq and terrorism. So Bush has imposed a new, yes-man director on the agency, slashed its budgets, purged its senior officers, and downgraded CIA to third-class status.
Rumsfeld's new, massively funded SSB will become the Pentagon's CIA, complete with commando units, spies, mercenary forces, intelligence gathering and analysis, and a direct line to the White House. The Pentagon has just effectively taken over the spy business.

The Pentagon's new spy arm will be largely excluded from Congressional oversight or media examination. Its special operations teams will roam the globe, all under cover of "deep black" missions of which no records will be kept, and no questions asked.
Equally worrying, the Pentagon's new special-ops units are headed up by notorious religious fanatic, Lt. Gen. William Boykin, who calls the U.S. Army "the house of God" and Islamic insurgents "agents of Satan." He warned Muslims, "my God is bigger than your god, which is an idol."
Boykin's command will now dispatch post-modern Christian crusaders to cleanse the world of Satanic Muslims and other miscreants...

If you were poor, a Native American, a small farmer or an ecologist, you probably did not vote for George Bush.

It is therefore not so surprising to find that all these sectors of society have come under attack, from the Republican administration's new fiscal budget.

However, if you were an army veteran you may have expected to escape spending cuts. But even this slice of American society, one that largely voted for Bush, finds itself the subject of financial "rollback".

...

"There is a very simple principle that goes a long way towards explaining decisions of the Bush administration. If some policy is beneficial to wealth, privilege and power, it should be promoted.

"If some policy is beneficial to the large majority of the population but of no particular concern (or even marginally costly) to wealth, privilege and power, it should be undermined."

...

Chomsky sees the budget not as a series of cuts but rather "to reorient (spending), so that it is even more focused on the interests of extreme wealth and power than before".

Before these spending hikes the United States already spent more on its military than the next 15 biggest national armies combined together. Even nuclear weaponry is set to get a boost to defend the US against "new threats, terrorism, failed states" as outlined by Condoleezza Rice in her Paris speech.

...

But perhaps most surprising are the cuts in assistance to US military veterans. Some of whom will who see a 114% increase in their long term drug bills, plus a one-off $250 subscription fee.

As well as a reduction in the number of nursing home places held for them. Do these cuts fit with the idea of opponents coming under fiscal attack?

"The administration's opponents are the large majority of the US population," says Chomsky. "The general 'starve the beast' strategy is hardly concealed, though few are willing to tell the truth. Namely, that the 'beast' they have in mind is the "great beast", to borrow the phrase of the Founding Fathers, the dangerous public."

Training of Iraq's security forces, crucial to any exit strategy for Britain and the US, is going so badly that the Pentagon has stopped giving figures for the number of combat-ready indigenous troops

The sleight of hand over troop numbers provoked a sharp clash during Condoleezza Rice's Senate confirmation hearings to become Secretary of State. After she quoted Pentagon figures claiming 122,000 Iraqis had been trained, she was told by Democratic Senator Joseph Biden: "Time and again this administration has tried to leave the American people with the impression that Iraq has well over 100,000 fully trained, fully competent military police and personnel. And that is simply not true. We're months, probably years, away from reaching our target goal.

First off, this is absolutely true and only happened about an hour ago. I am a Christian, a republican and support the war in Iraq, but this pisses me off in ways I cannot explain even to myself. This is not a debate thread, after you read this and look at the pictures, if you post anything it will be reactions, advice, or simple opinion. I know there are a lot of military personal in this forum and I would love to here what you have to say about this but if this turns into a flame war I will be extremely upset with whoever's involved. Now on to the story

The other day my dad tells me we're going to a "guy's night out" banquet. Innocent enough sounding, right? Well I haven't done anything that could be considered a favor for him in a long time, and it seems important to him if incredibly boring so, what the hell I'll go. He picks me up at the house around six. I nearly walk out the door about 5 times each time remembering something I've left behind, the last thing I go back for is my camera.
In the car conversation goes as awkwardly as it usually does with my dad,
"What is this thing anyway? Just sitting around card tables talking about good ‘ol days?"
"Probably not they've got one of the guys from the battle in black hawk down to talk about his time there"
Thinking to myself, at least that doesn't sound too bad, "Cool enough. Where is it, are we gonna get there on time?"
"Oh, it's right up the street at porter memorial"
So, that's kinda weird that it's at a church, but whatever. Churches are relatively cheap to rent out during the week.

When we get there traffic is crazy, there must be two thousand people coming to this one church. It's kind of odd that there are three squad cars just to stop traffic and let us all in, but you know what they say, "when enough people gather together in harmony, the fuzz come to break it up"

There's a humvey and black hawk helicopter sitting outside with corresponding units, half the people that are walking in with us are wearing service shirts. Whether air force, army, marines, coastguard, ambulance driver or fireman, all these guys get a check from Uncle Sam. Ok, I don't have any problems with men in uniform, unless I'm drunk outside and they're cops. A door opens and we're headed into the basement for pork barbeque sandwiches, chicken quarters, refried beans and slaw. On the way I glance guardsmen setting things up with that military motion you don't lose in civilian life until about a year out of boot camp. We tell old war stories full of gore and glory and times we almost bought the farm, as we eat. Without any of that kind of story of my own I told him about a PI named John Landrith killing three armed kidnappers with a rusty old meat cleaver to save a seven year old. It's well received in the basement of a church while we eat our Oreo minis. When our meal is done the mass is herded to the sanctuary were we watch the history channel's documentary on the events of black hawk down. When the lights come up my earlier discomfort is redoubled. I realize something is very ********ed up, and start taking pictures. What I see reminds me of footage from the third right the way patriotic imagery is thrown around bugger all. What you’re looking at is government mesh thrown over the steps to the balcony, and a huge flag covering up all but the tip of a huge cross in the first picture, and the huge amount of people sitting below various armed forces banners in the second. There was a nice POW one behind me. I apologize for the poor quality but it’s a new camera, and I’m still learning how to use it, especially in low & mixed light conditions

Here’s a close-up of the Marine donated supplies they made such a big deal about. They were effectively his pulpit.

Mike could you do me a favor and open a thread where-ever we do debates these days, and link it. I would really apreciate it. I mean this as more of an informational, and reation thread, but it should be discussed

BTW no, I'm not done. It still gets worse

We’re hearing about various strange happenings at different voting areas. They say that several areas in northern Iraq (some Assyrian and other Christian areas) weren’t allowed to vote. They also say that 300 different ballot boxes from all over the country were disqualified (mainly from Mosul) because a large number of the vote ballots had “Saddam” written on them. In other areas there’s talk of Badir’s Brigade people having bought the ballots to vote, and while the people of Falloojeh weren’t allowed to vote, people say that the identities of Falloojans were temporarily ‘borrowed’ for voting purposes. The stories are endless.

In spite of that, we’re all watching for the results carefully. When the ‘elected’ government takes control, will they set a timetable for American withdrawal? That would be a shocker considering none of the current parties would be able to remain in power without being forcefully backed by America with tanks and troops. We hear American politicians repeatedly saying that America will not withdraw until Iraq can secure itself. When will that happen? Our current National Guard or “Haress il Watani” are fondly called “Haress il Wathani” or “Infidel Guard” by people in the streets. On top of it all, to be one of them is considered such a disgrace by the general population that they have to wear masks so that none of them can be identified by neighbors and friends.

...[A WOMAN'S DRESS-CODE in BAGHDAD is an ISSUE. WHY? ]

“Please dress appropriately next time you come here.” The man said to me. I looked down at what I was wearing- black pants, a beige high-necked sweater and a knee-length black coat. Huh? I blushed furiously. He meant my head should be covered and I should be wearing a skirt. I don’t like being told what to wear and what not to wear by strange men. “I don’t work here- I don’t have to follow a dress code.” I answered coldly. The cousin didn’t like where the conversation was going, he angrily interceded, “We’re only here for an hour and it really isn’t your business.”

“It is my business.” Came the answer, “She should have some respect for the people who work here.” And the conversation ended. I looked around for the people I should be respecting. There were three or four women who were apparently ministry employees. Two of them were wearing long skirts, loose sweaters and headscarves and the third had gone all out and was wearing a complete “jubba” or robe-like garb topped with a black head scarf. My cousin and I turned to enter the room the receptionist had indicated and my eyes were stinging. No one could talk that way before the war and if they did, you didn’t have to listen. You could answer back. Now, you only answer back and make it an issue if you have some sort of death wish or just really, really like trouble.

Young females have the option of either just giving in to the pressure and dressing and acting ‘safely’- which means making everything longer and looser and preferably covering some of their head or constantly being defiant to what is becoming endemic in Iraq today. The problem with defiance is that it doesn’t just involve you personally, it involves anyone with you at that moment- usually a male relative. It means that there might be an exchange of ugly words or a fight and probably, after that, a detention in Abu Ghraib.

If it’s like this in Baghdad, I shudder to think what the other cities and provinces must be like. The Allawis and Pachichis of Iraq don’t sense it- their families are safely tucked away in Dubai and Amman, and the Hakeems and Jaffaris of Iraq promote it.

At the end of the day, it’s not about having a Sunni or Shia or Kurd or Arab in power. It’s about having someone who has Iraq’s best interests at heart- not America’s, not Iran’s, not Israel’s… It’s about needing someone who wants peace, prosperity, independence and above and beyond all, unity.

SusanG: How did the interview with Gannon come about, given that it was a small-time conservative news outlet?

Ambassador Wilson: Gannon called me and identified himself as the White House Correspondent from Talon News, a conservative news organization. He wanted to do a wide-ranging interview on my position on the war as well as the Niger mission and the leak.

While I had never heard his name or the name of his organization before, I was happy to do it. I have long felt that it is readers and viewers of conservative media who could benefit from a more balanced discussion of what is at stake in our policy and the actions of our government. At one point I recall Gannon as saying he was a traditional conservative (distinguishing himself from the neoconservatives, who in my judgement have totally captured our foreign policy). Speaking to the Times and other mainstream media is fine but those readers and viewers are generally better informed and often of the same perspective. It is those on the other side to whom we need to address the issues even more than to those with whom we already share views.

SusanG: Did you enter the interview fearful of "landmines" being set by the other side?

Ambassador Wilson: I never thought that I had anything to fear from landmines. I told the truth from the beginning. There was never anything to hide.

SusanG: Were you struck immediately during the course of the interview by the fact that he discussed the internal memo?


Ambassador Wilson: As to the memo, I knew nothing about it other than a Post journalist had told me there was one circulating which he characterized as having been written by somebody who was not at the meeting where I was asked if I would be willing to go to Niger. The fact is Valerie was not at that meeting. Neither she nor I had any ulterior motive in this. It was not until almost six months later that I began to speak out on the war question and even when I did, I always believed that WMD was a legitimate reason to be tough on Saddam. The trip to Niger is only relevant because of the 16 words and the fact that the only evidence to support the yellowcake charge the US turned over to the IAEA (as they were required by Article 10 of USUN 1441) were those forged documents relating to Niger. The only information the British apparently shared with the IAEA was a trip to the region by an Iraqi diplomat a couple of years previously. As it turned out, the CIA had told both the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the White House almost four months before the State of the Union address that it believed the British had "stretched" or "exaggerated" the yellowcake allegation. All of that was in the Senate report but unfortunately, was overlooked by the mainstream media.

Back to the memo, when Gannon mentioned it to me, I told him I knew nothing about it but repeated that my wife was not at the meeting at which the subject of a trip to Niger was broached with me. I may have mentioned that I had heard that there was a memo out there but had no other knowledge about it. I still don't.

SusanG: Are you comfortable letting it be known that you've spoken with me?

Ambassador Wilson: I have no problem with your saying you have spoken with me. I have no reason not to ensure that the truth is told and I am tired of the way in which the Republicans have smeared my family and myself for no reason other than to perpetuate their lies to the American people. I did not like fascists when I fought them as a diplomat for 23 years and I don't like them now in my own country.

The escalated public discourse about a possible military attack on Iran has alarmed many Iranians in Iran and its diaspora. As Iranians who are concerned about the implications of a war on our country, we have created this weblog to build a platform for preemptive dissent. In addition to our concerns about the fatalities of war, we are also troubled by the suppression of dissent in the U.S. and in Iran, and believe that war profoundly perpetuates civil repression.

The U.S. military is to beam its own news coverage to millions of Americans.

Moving on from its phase of embedding journalists, or as some would say, 'a policy of restricting and controlling the flow of information,' the Pentagon will now produce and disseminate the news itself. It will be beamed to the public at no charge. The service will emanate from what is known as the Pentagon Channel, an internal public relations television unit within the Department of Defense. It was set up nine months ago.

The government-run TV service will be channeled to the public through EchoStar Communication's Dish Network which will offer the Pentagon Channel to its more than 11 million viewers on a no-cost basis. Programming will appear on the network's public interest channels and will operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Dish viewers will be kept up to date with current military news and information including Department of Defense news briefings, military news, interviews with top defense officials, and short stories about the work of military people.

'We appreciate Dish Network's decision to carry the new Pentagon Channel on their satellite TV system,' said Defense Department spokesman Larry Di Rita. 'Their support helps us fulfill our mission of providing timely military news and information.'

This blog is no longer a blog written by a soldier.

It's written by somebody, who wanted to be a soldier, and was a soldier, and fought the best that he could while a soldier, in Iraq, who served his fucking country, and is now a civilian. And is O-U-T.

And it's also written by somebody who is too scared to post anything up on this blog, for fear that no matter what he says or writes from here on out, will either come off as, 'self-absorbed' and/or 'whiney.'

As for 'Soldier's Mom' who said...

'I'll probably read the Esquire piece but not sure I want to read the book -- on the fear that it will have been edited and sanitized to appeal to a broader audience...'

All i can say to you is, other than spelling and grammar, the books not going to be 'sanitized' to appeal to the masses, AT ALL.
And the people that know me best, know, that I would never do anything to appeal to a 'broader audience.'
And I intend to keep it that way.

The way I look at it, is either people will 'get it,' or they wont.
And that’s the way it should be.

Now that the euphoria of elections day has worn out, many Iraqis sense that the political future of the country is a bit more clear than it was before January 31. Immediate steps should be taken by the interim government, with the assistance of the international community, to arrange an urgent conference for Iraqi national reconciliation.

Invitations should be open to all Iraqi political and social groups, regardless of their repsective ideologies and their current stand from the occupation and the ongoing political process in the country. It is also essential that this conference includes elements of the former political order if possible, provided that they have not committed crimes against Iraqis whether in the past or in the present, as well as delegates from the largest and most influential tribes in the dissident areas and senior clerics from all over the country, encompassing religious and sectarian differences.

Many political groups that boycotted the elections are now softening their tone and are sheepishly asking for a role in the political process, trying as much as they can to save face at the same time. The Association of Muslim Scholars, the Pan-Arab, Nasseri, and Socialist movements, the Khalisi group and the Sadrists are among the first groups to call for such a role. Had there been no elections, this could not have been possible.

There is already a consensus among the different political powers that drafting the permanent constitution should not be done solely by the elected National Assembly. This in order to safeguard the interests of the part of the population that did not participate in the elections and to reassure Iraqis that everyone has a say in their future. No longer will one group, no matter how large its support base, dominate over others.

I truly hope that Iraqi politicians realise this and can work to achieve it, leaving aside their personal interests and differences for one moment, putting the prejudices of the past behind them, and listening to what Iraqis have to say. For it is Iraqis, and Iraqis alone, that are the key to solving this whole mess.

Apart from a minority that would rather burn down the country than see someone else in power, I am confident that most Iraqis are weary of all the violence, chaos and bloodshed. It is therefore the utmost duty of Iraqi politicians, the occupation authority and the international community to seize upon the moment and to quit beating around bushes.

It is time to involve the Iraqis themselves, to give them the final word. Iraqis do not wish for their country to be a "frontline on the war of terror", as Bush recently stated. Iraqis do not wish for their country to be a battleground for reactionary bearded cavemen waging their holy wars. Iraqis do not wish to be fuel for the wars of neighbouring countries. Iraqis want to live and let live. Iraqis want what you have.

# posted by zeyad : 2/9/2005 07:49:33 PM

This is old news now but I don't check the Electronic Intifada as much as I should.

Laura Reanda follows the campaign by various Zionist organisations, led, it seems, by the World Jewish Congress, to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism and to have both anti-Zionism and anti-semitism specifically condemned by the UN.

When it comes to the elections held in Iraq on 30 January, the greatest confusion among the American people is in failing to understand Iraqi nationhood.

There are practically no US citizens who think of themselves as being Protestant, Catholic or Jewish before they think of themselves as Americans.

When it comes to Iraq, though, Americans have been educated to think that all Iraqis think of themselves first as members of a Muslim sect, and only then as Iraqis.

The difference is crucial, in that the erroneous assumption is leading President George Bush, the US government, and American intellectuals on a path that ends with a break-up of Iraq into three independent states, one Kurdish, one Sunni and one Shia.

While the influential newspaper The New York Times editorially inveighed against such division after the elections, its commentary pages have been hospitable to those who are advocates for division.

On 1 February, Peter Galbraith, a long-time advocate of Kurdish independence, was given the lead space in paper to repeat his call for division.

The very next day, Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the influential Council on Foreign Relations, repeated his argument that "the only workable government would be a confederation with three largely autonomous regions".

I might have been of a similar mind had it not been for my contacts in the US intelligence community who assured me that the most powerful political force in Iraq is nationalism, not sectarianism, and this explains the election turnout better than anything we have been reading and seeing in the news media.

Stephen Pelletiere, a former CIA analyst of Middle East affairs who has been following developments while in retirement, some years ago explained to me that for most of Iraq's history since the break-up of the Ottoman Empire after the second world war, sectarianism was the rule, nationalism only nascent.

It will, of course, look like a puppet government to the insurgents.
It was only during the eight-year war between Iraq and Iran that nationhood took root and blossomed, as Shia, Sunnis, Kurds and Turkmen fought shoulder to shoulder to defend their secular government against Tehran's call for Shia fundamentalism in a theocratic state.

I believe this is true, or the people of Iraq of all sects would not have submitted to the cost in lives to defeat the Iranians. And that includes the Kurds, 85% of whom fought against Tehran's attempt at the time to spread theocratic fundamentalism across the Islamic universe.

It is true that early in the war, many Iraqi Shia deserted to the Iranian side, believing they would be welcomed with open arms, but they were thrown in POW camps instead.

As Iraqi and Iranian Shia encountered and killed each other in battles over Shia cities such as Basra, the spirit of nationalism must have taken hold as the Iraqi soldiers chose to defend the homeland instead of laying down their arms to welcome their "fellow" Shia from Iran.

With this perspective, it immediately becomes clear why the elections were essentially meaningless: The way the balloting was constructed, there was no venue for an expression of Iraqi nationalism. There was no nationalist party.

The electorate was offered essentially sectarian slates, and even those were created either by Iraqi exiles who had sided with Iran during the war that gave birth to Iraqi nationalism, or which were identified with clerics such as Ayat Allah Ali al-Sistani, an Iranian by birth who will be biased in favour of a theocratic state or something close to it.

The only nationalist on the scene, the cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, sat out the election and so did his nationalist followers. The American press played it incorrectly as a boycott by Sunni Muslims, but it was rather an abstention by Iraqi nationalists. Al-Sadr is of course a Shia, but first and foremost he is a nationalist.

The New York Times reported for several weeks that al-Sadr was negotiating with Ahmad Chalabi, another Iraqi exile who had sided with Tehran in the war, but obviously nothing came of that.

It was preposterous in any event to think al-Sadr would team up with a man he would have to see as a quisling. Chalabi not only teamed with the Iranians, but was an architect of the American war against his own country.

The very idea that the American-appointed prime minister of the interim government, Iyad Allawi, would hold a similar post in the new government arising out of the elections is ridiculous, but of course that is what the Bush administration is negotiating to achieve.

It would simply confirm to the Iraqi nationalists that the US agenda is a permanent imperialist outpost in Baghdad, to manage the oil regions and protect Israel against any threats real or imagined, come what may.

One of the things we always tend to forget when we get "good news" from Iraq, as there appears to be with the voter turnout, is that as bad as Saddam Hussein may have been in his 30 years in power, the number of Iraqi men, women and children who died as a result of US sanctions and war - to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction that it did not have - is in the order of one million, or one out of every 20.

The way the balloting was constructed, there was no venue for an expression of Iraqi nationalism. There was no nationalist party.
This is why Americans had to hope the weapons inspectors would find WMD and the imminent threat they would pose to the region and the world. That alone would have undermined the anti-war arguments and given justification for the invasion and the dozen years of killing sanctions.

The president and supporters of the war can celebrate the election, but they in no way alter the facts on the ground. The election was meaningless.

I have rarely agreed with Senator Ted Kennedy on any major issue, but he is positively correct when he says there will be no chance of improvement in Iraq until the United States is gone.

The internet is now bristling with reminders of Vietnam and how the national elections there in September 1967 offered so much promise of victory. For example:

US Encouraged by Vietnam Vote: Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror
by Peter Grose, Special to The New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)

WASHINGTON, Sept 3 - United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here. Pending more detailed reports, neither the State Department nor the White House would comment on the balloting or the victory of the military candidates, Lieut. Gen. Nguyen Van Thieu, who was running for president, and Premier Nguyen Cao Ky, the candidate for vice president….

Before the results of the presidential election started to come in, the American officials warned that the turnout might be less than 80 per cent because the polling place would be open for two or three hours less than in the election a year ago. The turnout of 83 per cent was a welcome surprise. The turnout in the 1964 United States Presidential election was 62 per cent.

What do I expect now? It will be another several days before the interim government announces the election results and some while before the prime minister and vice presidents are chosen.

It will, of course, look like a puppet government to the insurgents. Can it be turned around? Perhaps, but that would take a nationalist movement, the likes of which we have not yet seen emerge.

Jude Wanniski is a former associate editor of The Wall Street Journal, expert on supply-side economics and founder of Polyconomics, which helps to interpret the impact of political events on financial markets.

First off, this is absolutely true and only happened about an hour ago. I am a Christian, a republican and support the war in Iraq, but this pisses me off in ways I cannot explain even to myself. This is not a debate thread, after you read this and look at the pictures, if you post anything it will be reactions, advice, or simple opinion. I know there are a lot of military personal in this forum and I would love to here what you have to say about this but if this turns into a flame war I will be extremely upset with whoever's involved. Now on to the story

The other day my dad tells me we're going to a "guy's night out" banquet. Innocent enough sounding, right? Well I haven't done anything that could be considered a favor for him in a long time, and it seems important to him if incredibly boring so, what the hell I'll go. He picks me up at the house around six. I nearly walk out the door about 5 times each time remembering something I've left behind, the last thing I go back for is my camera.
In the car conversation goes as awkwardly as it usually does with my dad,
"What is this thing anyway? Just sitting around card tables talking about good ‘ol days?"
"Probably not they've got one of the guys from the battle in black hawk down to talk about his time there"
Thinking to myself, at least that doesn't sound too bad, "Cool enough. Where is it, are we gonna get there on time?"
"Oh, it's right up the street at porter memorial"
So, that's kinda weird that it's at a church, but whatever. Churches are relatively cheap to rent out during the week.

When we get there traffic is crazy, there must be two thousand people coming to this one church. It's kind of odd that there are three squad cars just to stop traffic and let us all in, but you know what they say, "when enough people gather together in harmony, the fuzz come to break it up"

There's a humvey and black hawk helicopter sitting outside with corresponding units, half the people that are walking in with us are wearing service shirts. Whether air force, army, marines, coastguard, ambulance driver or fireman, all these guys get a check from Uncle Sam. Ok, I don't have any problems with men in uniform, unless I'm drunk outside and they're cops. A door opens and we're headed into the basement for pork barbeque sandwiches, chicken quarters, refried beans and slaw. On the way I glance guardsmen setting things up with that military motion you don't lose in civilian life until about a year out of boot camp. We tell old war stories full of gore and glory and times we almost bought the farm, as we eat. Without any of that kind of story of my own I told him about a PI named John Landrith killing three armed kidnappers with a rusty old meat cleaver to save a seven year old. It's well received in the basement of a church while we eat our Oreo minis. When our meal is done the mass is herded to the sanctuary were we watch the history channel's documentary on the events of black hawk down. When the lights come up my earlier discomfort is redoubled. I realize something is very ********ed up, and start taking pictures. What I see reminds me of footage from the third right the way patriotic imagery is thrown around bugger all. What you’re looking at is government mesh thrown over the steps to the balcony, and a huge flag covering up all but the tip of a huge cross in the first picture, and the huge amount of people sitting below various armed forces banners in the second. There was a nice POW one behind me. I apologize for the poor quality but it’s a new camera, and I’m still learning how to use it, especially in low & mixed light conditions

They were ready to start the show, so after a raffle for all five branches of the military t-shirts, UK basketball tickets, and Famous Dave’s BBQ coupons(the caterer), we were subjected to a really shitty Rockapella group wearing camo with cackies, and singing mixed Christian rock and patriotic numbers.

About then I was given a bulletin. Roughly the same time they had all active members of the armed forces stand up for aplause, then all former members, then the fathers of active members (Remember this is supposed to be a father son thing, guilt trip anyone?)

Then our state National Guard ceremonially presented colors, i.e. this is now a military function. I think they were the only ones that didn’t say that pledge of allegiance, but maybe their lips moved and I didn’t hear it. I was way back. This was the first time in my life I said the pledge of allegiance with any hesitation at all. I guess I don’t like doing it in a place of greater allegiance, especially when it only barely has “under god" in it anymore. Right after when the shity Rockapella group sang the national anthem a couple people shouted “Amen!” at the end. I started to get sick right then.

After that, they had guys wearing the traditional US uniforms over time walk out in order while scenes from a Jesus movie I cant recall played. I was never aware of voodoo style witch doctors, or Indiana Jones being members of our military (far left and second from right respectively in the first pic). I think it’s kinda funny that unless I’m wrong that fellow on the far left of the second pic is wearing a confederate uniform. I know it’s ridiculously bad taste but yes, that really is Jesus on the cross in the first picture…in behind our troops. When the final modern troop stepped out too the front and center he thrust his rifle one handed into the air to shouts of approval, the Jesus footage was still playing, and at that particular point even my dad was uncomfortable.

At this point Captain Sturecker preached to us in full dress uniform about his early faith was based in fear of going to hell, but now he doesn’t need to fear death, and about his experiences in the black hawk afair. In particular he prayed after his first drive back to base (If you‘ve seen the movie, he was the humvee driver with the injured man on strecher in the back. He was also the guy that said, “The difference in between heroes and cowards isn‘t the fear it‘s what they do with it”), and after that even though the vehicle was shot to hell, he had no casualties. He even watched an RPG barely miss its’ mark and deflect off his hood. Every word of this might be true, but it was also part of a “The lord will protect you in the military” themed sermon. I have never had both respect and disgust for a single individual with such volume in my life. When I asked him for a picture with him holding the same bible he is in the sermon picture I think my attitude came off as “fan boy”.

Here’s a close-up of the Marine donated supplies they made such a big deal about. They were effectively his pulpit.

Mike could you do me a favor and open a thread where-ever we do debates these days, and link it. I would really apreciate it. I mean this as more of an informational, and reation thread, but it should be discussed

BTW no, I'm not done. It still gets worse

Even as I had already taken these photographs of something that I clearly know is wrong, hell we ended with “I‘m proud to be an American”, after a sermon and a combined rendition of all the services anthems. I was conflicted. I knew, and know that almost all of the people I’m depending on to bring this to light disagree with me on virtually every issue. I wasn’t going to release this unless they were recruiting. They were.
Jesus himself only got mad once. It was because merchants were using the church to sell their wares, he flipped their tables, seized a whip, and attacked them. This day the answer to “what would Jesus do?” is grab one of the m-16s laying around and start kneecapping.

This is a close up of strucer's nametag just to make sure I got the name right, and the tag on the recruitment dummy, as they both attach at least two people involved with this mess.

As I leave you with the final images I plan to of two of the ancient flags that surrounded the stage, and The banner at the front door I have to express regret that even a very small portion of my country is as religiously militaristic as the whole world already believes it to be. I myself think of this as a huge fuster cluck of the balances that are already there being missed.

If you have any questions feel free to IM or PM me. I have huge 5 mega pixel raws to prove it was me.

WINTHROP, Maine — A 22-year-old veteran from Peaks Island, Maine who was granted conscientious objector status from the Army last November is taking to the Internet to share what he learned with others. Perry O'Brien, who served a tour in Afghanistan as an airborne medic before he was honorably discharged, on Saturday launched his online guide - http://www.peace-out.com - at a Winthrop Area People for Peace breakfast at the Winthrop Congregational Church.

"The Army doesn't make this information widely available, and many soldiers don't even know that the option of CO (conscientious objection) is available to them," O'Brien said. "This is a comprehensive, online resource for COs. We're already talking to three soldiers on how to avoid all the pitfalls."

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

MSNBC.com has a section called "Iraq: The Human Cost" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3359080/ , ironically the list contains only coalition deaths during the war. We the undersigned think that all Humans are equal and when we count the human cost of this war we do not look at their passports.

We ask MSNBC to solve this by including the Iraqi civilian deaths in this list, We think that we should honor all who lost their life during this war, and more importantly those who are paying the price even though they are not fighting the war. That's what "Human cost is"

G.P. Putnam's Sons to Publish U.S. Army Soldier and Blogger Colby Buzzell's War Experiences on the Ground in Iraq

Monday January 31, 2:46 pm ET

According to Esquire Magazine: 'The most extraordinary writing yet produced by a soldier of the Iraq war ...'

NEW YORK, Jan. 31 /PRNewswire/ -- G.P. Putnam's Sons is publishing the personal experiences of twenty-eight-year-old U.S. Army soldier Colby Buzzell. His book, My War, will offer uncensored stories that bring home the chilling realities of war. Buzzell's incisive reportage and brutally honest take on the war were first filed as entries in a web log, My War, that he created as a way to tell the world about what was really happening in Iraq. Buzzell's book will delve further into his personal experiences as a 20-something soldier in the line of fire.
Putnam will publish the book in hardcover in fall 2005, with a paperback edition to be published by Berkley in 2006.

Before enlisting in the Army at age twenty-six, Colby Buzzell (now twenty-eight) was living in California, jumping from one low-paying job to the next. He joined the military because he was "sick of living my life in oblivion." After he was deployed to Iraq, he quickly discovered that his life would never be the same again. On the ground near Mosul with First Battalion, 23rd Regiment, toting heavy weaponry amidst "guerilla warfare, urban-style," Buzzell was disturbed by how the war he was fighting was being reported - both by major news agencies and soldier-written blogs. In June 2004, Buzzell started his own blog, My War, and it offers a glimpse of his innate ability to chronicle the essence of war and its powerful impact on him and the world.

Mr. Highfill commented, "My War is already being compared by some early readers to the classics of combat and youth ... Heller's Catch-22 and Herr's Dispatches."

This really is pretty incredible. From Jack Shafer's Slate column today, via Atrios:

[MSNBC Hardball host, Chris] Matthews: Wait a minute. When you say—Judy, when you say administration, do you mean the alliance party leadership or Allawi over there, the current prime minister? Who are you talking about?

[NYT reporter Judith] Miller: We are talking about the administration officials who have been reaching out to …

Matthews: You mean Americans?

Miller: ... [Ayatollah] Sistani's—yes, American officials who have been reaching out to Sistani's party. Because Dr. Chalabi is on that list.

Matthews: So where—so we have an election over there. And the same day we're holding an election, the same week, we are plotting which ministries to give to Chalabi, the guy who talked us into the war in the first place.

Miller: No, no. There were expressions. There was apparently an effort to determine whether or not he would be interested in assuming a certain portfolio.

Matthews: Why are we in the business of deciding or even negotiating cabinet ministries in a foreign government?

Miller: No. Well, you know, Chris, first of all, this is just one report. But I think what is very clear, according to people I talked to today, is that they have been attempting to mend fences with him. Now understanding that as a tent [phonetic transcription] on that Sistani list, the Shia list, he will be an important person in Iraq. And I think that there will have to be a lot of rethinking on the part of the Americans with whom they want to deal.

Matthews: … the idea that the man who won his country back through the vice president's office, Ahmed Chalabi, finds his way now through all this electoral process to end up as oil minister or finance minister, as you say, interior minister—and I think he has higher ambitions than that—makes the electoral process come down to the guy who started the war, ends up winning the war, irregardless of how people vote over there.

Miller: Well, you know, I think the interesting thing was the up and down, was the kind of rise and fall of Ahmed Chalabi in this administration. On one hand, in the beginning, he was the person supported adamantly by the Defense Department. He was opposed by the State Department and the CIA …

Matthews: Right.

Miller: ... who said he had no popular support in the country...

Matthews: Right.

Miller: ... and he wouldn't be able to hold a coalition together. We've now seen that, in fact, he played a pivotal role in putting together, helping to put together the list which we don't know yet, but it may very well have done extremely well, if not won the vote.

By fighting terrorists in Iraq, does America reduce the likelihood it will have to fight them in the United States? It is an appealing idea to a nation that continues to worry about another 9/11, but on careful analysis the argument does not stand up.

Taking the fight to terrorists abroad — as America did by invading Afghanistan and by continuing efforts against terrorists worldwide — makes sense. But Iraq is a separate and special case, because many of the combatants killed or captured by American and allied forces in Iraq are insurgents created by opposition to the U.S. invasion itself. They have little to do with the jihadists that the United States has been actively hunting since 9/11, although some have been converted to al-Qaida's ideology since joining the resistance.

Iraq is not a geographic front line through which terrorists must pass physically to reach American shores. We are not heading them off at the pass. The jihadists and their recruiting reservoirs are dispersed throughout the populations of Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, Europe, and to a lesser degree North America. They are inspired by al-Qaida's ideology, but they are also fired up about local issues.

Fighting in Iraq is not so distracting to the jihadist enterprise that it is unable to prepare and carry out terrorist attacks elsewhere. Al-Qaida was never a highly centralized operation. Under intense pressure for the past 39 months, it has further decentralized. Local jihadist operatives are doing more on their own. Since 9/11, jihadists have carried out major terrorist attacks from Bali to Madrid, on an average of once every two months, not counting incidents in Russia or Iraq. The pace of terrorist operations has not slowed a bit since the invasion of Iraq.

True, some of the foreign jihadists who showed up to fight in Iraq might have been candidates for operations at home had there been no war. But their numbers do not appear to be great, and most are from countries adjacent to Iraq.

Taken literally, the argument that battling terrorists in Iraq averts battling them in America and elsewhere assumes there is roughly a fixed number of terrorists in the world. Following this logic, when U.S. officials say that three-quarters of al-Qaida's leaders have been killed or captured, or when they talk about the total number of terrorists detained worldwide, we could simply subtract this number from the ranks of those who are plotting to attack the United States and elsewhere. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Counting terrorists is slippery business. The jihadist population itself is dynamic. Recruiting has continued successfully since 9/11 — some analysts believe it has increased as a consequence of the terrorist attacks. And opinion polls among Muslims suggest that growing antipathy toward the United States is expanding the jihadists' recruiting reservoir.

At the same time, terrorist losses are continuous. In addition to those killed and captured, some of those who went through the training camps claim to have decided right away that al-Qaida's brand of jihad was not for them. Others, no doubt, have dropped out in the years since they attended training.

Jihadists also vary in their level of commitment. Some are willing to serve as martyrs, while others are willing only to provide passive support, prompting terrorist leaders to complain of substandard zeal.

That leaves us with a terrorist population that is simultaneously expanding and eroding, and whose individual members are constantly recalibrating their level of commitment.

The “fighting them there, not here” school of thought makes sense if one conflates the threat posed by terrorists like Osama bin Laden with that of hostile tyrants with nuclear ambitions like Saddam Hussein. Although claims of a prior relationship between al-Qaida and Hussein have been largely abandoned, the argument assumes inevitable (if not demonstrable) links.

This is the core belief underlying the “global war on terror,” which views the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and escalating terrorism as a single threat. It presumes that proliferating states — reluctant to use nuclear or other unconventional weapons themselves and risk retaliation — will hand the weapons over to terrorists, who are likely to use them against U.S. targets.

On his recent visit to Baghdad, British Prime Minister Tony Blair offered a more nuanced interpretation of the connection between the fighting in Iraq and the fight against terrorism. “If Iraq becomes a stable, democratic country able to defeat terrorism here [in Iraq] — which is the same kind of terrorism that we face the world over — if we can defeat it here, we deal it a blow worldwide,” Blair said. Putting aside the crucial “if” in the prime minister's statement — and forgetting for the moment that the current terrorism in Iraq is a product of the invasion itself — this argument sees terrorism in Iraq and worldwide as a single phenomenon that nonetheless can be dealt a blow in Iraq.

The most ambitious and optimistic proponents of the fighting-them-there thesis would reach further, arguing that only by profoundly altering the Middle East's political situation from failed states and corrupt tyrants to the stable, democratic allies envisioned by Prime Minister Blair can the United States ever hope to defeat terrorism. According to this line of thinking, political change brought about by armed might in Iraq will spread from Baghdad to Damascus, Tehran, Riyadh, Cairo and beyond.

Ironically, this is exactly the way the jihadists see the non-Muslim world, making no distinctions between U.S., Israeli, Indian, Serbian and Russian policies. And they similarly call for expansion of the jihad, urging their followers to fight now instead of waiting for the infidels to invade the jihadists' countries.

Some might even say, “Fighting the infidels in Iraq means not fighting them here.”

The Iraqi elections could consolidate support among Sunnis for the insurgency, increase violence and channel the fighting that results along ethnic and religious lines. That's because Iraq's present electoral system will award representation to each province based not on its population but on the number of voters who actually reach the polls. So Baghdad and the Sunni triangle will be at a serious disadvantage. Violence there is extraordinarily high and voter participation is likely to be correspondingly low.

It's probably too late to fix the Iraqi electoral system in order to make it more like that of the United States, but it's not too late to fix the consequences after the election. The new parliament and government can be adjusted to reflect the country's real population. Iraq can avoid escalating civil war if the upcoming elections are followed by negotiations for power sharing.

The Sunni and Kurdish minorities should be offered an enduring share in governance and they should have guarantees that the Shia majority cannot govern in an exclusive and discriminatory fashion. Sunni leaders should be offered positions in the government and additional seats in the legislature commensurate with their share in the population even if there's a low voter turnout in Sunni parts of the country.

This sort of power-sharing agreement ended earlier bloody civil wars between Christians and Muslims in both Lebanon and Bosnia. Unfortunately, the electoral results are likely to make such power sharing more difficult. They're likely to give the Shia an even larger majority in parliament and to make the Sunni an even smaller minority, but even so, moderate Shia leaders will have considerable incentives to share power. They want to hold Iraq together, they want to avoid a bloody civil war and they want to expedite an eventual American withdrawal. They cannot hope to achieve these objectives without some accommodation with the Sunnis.

The United States has a comparable interest in this outcome for exactly the same reasons, but maneuvering the Shia, Sunni and Kurdish communities toward that outcome will require an extraordinarily quiet and skilled diplomatic campaign. Some may accuse the United States of subverting the results of a free election. Others will say we're supporting the very community most opposed to our presence in Iraq, but the 60 to 90 days after this month's elections will be pivotal for Iraq's future.

If the electoral winners can be persuaded to share power with the losers, they will have a chance to convince a significant element of the Sunni community to support the government. Then moderate and democratic Iraqis will have a chance to hold their country together and to avoid the kind of ethnic cleansing and genocidal violence that we saw in Lebanon in the 1980s, in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s and we see in Sudan today.

Heat not a furnace for your foe so hot
That it do singe yourself.

William Shakespeare (1564-1616)

George Bush and Tony Blair made heroic speeches on Sunday implying that Iraqis had voted to approve the occupation. Those who insist that the US is desperate for an exit strategy are misreading its intentions. The facts on the ground, including the construction of massive military bases in Iraq, indicate that the US is digging in to install and back a long-term puppet regime. For this reason, the US-led presence will continue, with all that entails in terms of bloodshed and destruction.

In the run-up to the poll, much of the western media presented it as a high-noon shootout between the terrorist Zarqawi and the Iraqi people, with the occupation forces doing their best to enable the people to defeat the fiendish, one-legged Jordanian murderer. In reality, Zarqawi-style sectarian violence is not only condemned by Iraqis across the political spectrum, including supporters of the resistance, but is widely seen as having had a blind eye turned to it by the occupation authorities. Such attitudes are dismissed by outsiders, but the record of John Negroponte, the US ambassador in Baghdad, of backing terror gangs in central America in the 80s has fuelled these fears, as has Seymour Hirsh's reports on the Pentagon's assassination squads and enthusiasm for the "Salvador option".

An honest analysis of the social and political map of Iraq reveals that Iraqis are increasingly united in their determination to end the occupation. Whether they participated in or boycotted Sunday's exercise, this political bond will soon reassert itself - just as it did in Vietnam - despite tactical differences, and despite the US-led occupation's attempts to dominate Iraqis by inflaming sectarian and ethnic divisions.