Major Breakthrough In Iraq
Dave Price
This is the best possible news:
BAGHDAD - Iraq's parliament on Wednesday passed three key pieces of legislation that set a date for provincial elections, allot $48 billion for 2008 spending, and provide limited amnesty to detainees in Iraqi custody.This appears to at least partially satisfy the last two of the three political benchmarks, elections and revenue sharing, that were laid out for the Iraqis, the lack of which was used by Democrats to claim there was “no progress” in Iraq. It’s difficult to see how that meme persists now; it seems likely detractors will have to go back to citing the cost of the conflict.
The new elections are particularly important:
The last time Iraqis voted for local officials was January 2005, when nationwide elections ushered in representational government for the first time in modern history.Given the sea change in Sunni Iraq, the elections should go a long way towards empowering moderates.
But many Sunni Arabs boycotted the polls, giving Iraq's majority Shiites and minority Kurds the bulk of power. The U.S. hopes the new elections will empower the Sunni minority and blunt support for the insurgency
UPDATE: A very timely piece from Bill Ardolino that explains in great detail the intricacies of parliamentary democracy in Iraq.
it is one thing to pass the legislation and quite another to reap positive benefits from it. However, obviously this is just the first step and one that was necessary for on-the-ground progress on the benchmarks to take place!
My feeling is at this point the elections will indeed be a sea change and hopefully will really consolidate the gains we've made in the past 6 months.
And Bill's piece is, of course (and again), amazing.
Actually, zach., the positive benefits have been happening for months, long before the legislation formalized them. Speaker Pelosi ignored them, and kept insisting that failure to pass the legislation made the surge a failure. She planted the goal posts, and she doesn't get to move them now (again).
I don't understand why liberals are not jumping for joy at the progress made in Iraq. Historically, liberals have been on the side of the oppressed rather than the oppressors, even if such struggles involved armed sacrifice.
I find it a bit perplexing.
HankB
Iraq is no longer interesting because it doesn't make for good theatrical displays of concern and fake empathy.
I'm not disputing the gains that have been made so far at the local level in Iraq, but as both Michael Totten's posts and the recent series from Bill Ardolino make clear, I think there is still a ways to go in terms of national reconciliation and getting something that's some semblance of a working government going.
I absolutely agree with Dave that all signs are pointing to the hypothesis that elections will be a sea change in this regard. I also think that the three new pieces of legislation are the necessary first step towards taking local gains national. However I take the view that optimists are always disappointed while pessimists are always pleasantly surprised, and therefore remain very cautious (but still pleasantly surprised!).
While I get your point, that allows for the endless goalpost-moving that Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid have indulged in. The definition of "failure" keeps changing, and I'm tired of it. Their most recent definition of failure was "No legislation." Well, we have legislation. Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid can now admit that the surge was a success, or be revealed as partisan liars. Yes, liars.
She cares nothing about success or failure in Iraq except to the extent it can be used to harm Bush and by extension help her and her party.
If a great nation arises or if Iraq sinks into massacre; neither really matters to her.
anyone who doesn't acknowledge the progress is a partisan shill, absolutely. goalpost moving is also abhorrent. but it's also worth noting that i've been reading a lot of reports both from totten, ardolino, and others that are basically giving Iraq even odds. Those are definitely odds I'll take, but it does mean that wherever the goalpost is with respect to where we are right now, I don't think even by original metrics that we've quite reached the goal line. The problem I see with Pelosi and others is that the goal line they've set is fuzzy. I don't know if it was legislation, but rather "political reconciliation." what does that mean? when do we know when it's been achieved? that would be my issue.
But I think we're agreeing with each other on the larger point which is that wherever we are on the field, we are moving in the right direction and that's really the end of the story. As long as you're getting first downs you shouldn't change the game-plan.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.