It would seem that those of us opposed to the war may need to re-think how we continue to address the issues. The old ones are fine, but he got away with them (and that, I think, was always the point of why he had to lose the elections; almost regardless of what the other guy had to say). And to a good proportion of well-meaning people, those visuals are going to make a difference, I'd think. And if the US is to get out of Iraq, it's all those well-meaning, but ideologically uncommitted, who need to be persuaded that this is all wrong.
===================================
This brings to mind something Juan Cole wrote a few weeks ago.
Several readers of his blog asked why he spent so much time describing the ins and outs of the Iraqi election when clearly, they weren't worth much under occupation (from the most critical point of view).
His reply was very instructive. He wrote that he was "following Sistani" because he represented the head of the single largest social and political force in the country. Of course, by 'follow' he didn't mean adhere to whatever religious code Sistani laid down (sorry to be so annoyingly literal but I've learned from experience that a lot of time is spent here explaining things you think are obvious - perhaps a limitation of the listserv mode of communication).
He meant that because the election was important to Sistani - and, therefore, important to his many millions of followers - the process deserved close scrutiny even though it occurs under an imperialist (my word) shadow.
We can use this as a guide for how to respond to pro-war, pro-imperialist chest pounding about these elections.
One of our problems, as I see things, is that we're unwilling to pay close attention to or credit the ideas and moves of religious/political leaders like Sistani. We limit our focus on the Iraqi Communist Party, trade unionists and other groups we can easily identify and sympathize with.
But if, as we're told by several knowledgeable sources, religious leaders command the lion's share of respect and support and their ideas will, to some great extent, determine Iraq's future and if we claim to support the goals of the Iraqi people instead of whatever Washington's goals may be we're placed in a very uncomfortable spot if we refuse to seriously consider the role of religious leaders.
The best reply to the chest thumpers is to relentlessly point out that these elections are the result of Sistani's clout -- not American largess. Furthermore, whatever political arrangements result from the process Sistani started must be taken seriously - regardless of what imperialist and indeed, anti-imperialists think or say.
In other words, the proper response is to alert people to the fact that the US is a lethal irritant, a deadly sideshow to a much larger event that is unfolding before our eyes (though many fail to see).
The reason so many of us have a hard time dealing with the election from an anti-imperialist POV is because we're troubled (or unaware) by its true source: the Shia religious leadership. So, unable or unwilling to place credit where it belongs we fall easily into the trap of engaging in a sort of false negation -- stating that Bush is not the hero of the story but failing to go the extra step of crediting the true architect.
Before long, when Sistani's thus far quiet opposition to American hegemonic plans becomes impossible to sweep under the rug, he'll go from being a sort of ally (in the Fox News vision of the world) to Public Enemy Number One.
What will our response be then?
.d.
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.4 - Release Date: 2/1/2005