The role reversal is delicious. Back in the day, it was the Dems who were all about the big symbolic gestures while the GOP sat in the back scowling like a cross between the Grinch and Ebenezer Scrooge.

For me, 8M purple fingers is worth a LOT of red ink.

eh... i think its a bit overdone. after all, the iraqis earned that purple ink by dodging mortars and bullets to go vote. these guys don't have the moral authority to lay claim to the same symbol.

Overdone? It's symbolic and encouraging. As the representatives of America, I think it's fitting and a show of undersanding and solidarity with the Iraqi people. After all, the elections in Iraq happened in part because some American soldiers paid the ultimate price. Let's face it, without their sacrifice, there would have been no election on January 31st or sooner.

Very fitting use of the symbol.

the elections in Iraq happened in part because some American soldiers paid the ultimate price.

Let's also not forget that ten times as many Iraqi civilians have died.

So now the rhetoric has made its complete turn away from the danger of Hussein and WMD's. Now the White House is acknowledging its intent of spreading the Good News of American democracy to the entire region (read Target:Iran). Don't get me wrong, I love American democracy, but I just don't have the feeling that an imposed democracy in these countries will be in the best interest of the US in the long run. SO, now that the rhetoric has shifted to state that American soldiers are dying to spread democracy in the Mideast and the talk of dangerous Saddam and his WMD's have been all but forgotten, where does that put us in the eyes of the world and in the minds of Iraqis: as imperialists. Credibility for the newly elected leaders in Iraq will be diminished with our presence there. Iraqi democracy=America's puppet. And why is the Shia majority playing it cool; because it is guaranteed to be the heirs to this new democracy. And why is Shia Iran the next target. Because the Bush admin. realizes a united theocratic Shia bloc (Iraq&Iran) is right around the corner. This is a snowball that will come back to kick us in the ass like a motherfucking avalanche.

Manish, I did not intend to diminish the fact that the Iraqi people have suffered much more in the latest war than anybody else.

The American soldiers did play a non-trivial and benign role in bringing about elections, and for that I say the symbolism is fitting. Whether or not a person agrees that this war was started on just or unjust grounds (and arguments can be made for both sides), at the very least least some good has come out of it.

.> Off of Rahul Mahajan's blog

Iraq's First Real Election in Over Half a Century

If you have been reading newspaper stories about the Iraqi elections, you may have come across this phrase or permutations of it several dozen times. This sort of superficiality, of course, is what passes for historical context in American newspapers.

But perhaps you'd like to know what all of these identical accounts refer to. Useful sources include Hanna Batatu's The Old Social Classes and the Revolutionary Movements of Iraq, Marion Farouk Sluglett and Peter Sluglett's Iraq Since 1958: From Revolution to Dictatorship, and Charles Tripp's A History of Iraq.

First, a little background. In 1941, the British military intervened to remove an anti-British government and replace it with a pro-British one (this was 11 years after the British mandate formally ended). In 1958, there was a revolution led by Abdel Karim Qassim that ended the Hashemite monarchy and also British hegemony over Iraq. In the period 1941-58, Nuri as-Said was the foremost and most powerful political figure, and one who generally aligned closely with the British. According to Batatu, in that same period, the country was under martial law for a total of a phenomenal 2483 days (6.8 years). There were frequent elections, combined with extensive press censorship and severe repression of numerous political parties (the Communists, probably the party with the largest popular base after 1948, remained illegal during most of this period, and more moderate leftist parties were also often banned). Basically, martial law would be imposed as a response to significant popular uprisings, then when they were sufficiently repressed it would be lifted for a time. Starting from 1949, Nuri had been pushing the notion of dissolving all the parties into a single-party state, an idea resisted by others in the government who saw Nuri as dictatorial.

In that context, the elections of 1954 were expected to be yet another rubber-stamp for the small number of parties associated with elite political figures all of whom were loyal to the monarchy and cooperated with the British. They ended up being a little more than that, and were the freest elections to date. An alliance of the Communists with liberal parties (the Istiklal, or Independence, Party, and the National Democratic Party) ended up getting about 10% of the seats in Parliament.

In response, in August 1954, Nuri as-Said was called in from abroad by the regent to form a government. He dissolved Parliament, disbanded his own political party, and called for others to disband (those that didn't were shut down). He instituted extreme press censorship, cracked down on public assembly, and severely repressed the Communist Party and affiliated organizations. In 1956, he had rubber-stamp elections in which roughly 85% of delegates ran unopposed. 1956 was also when Nuri joined in the creation of the Baghdad Pact, an attempt by the United States to create a network of military allies integrated into its larger imperial control, much like SEATO or NATO.

Of course, we don't expect the government created from the current elections to formally disband political parties and there's no need for them to kill members of dissenting parties (except the armed resistance), because those parties have not had the chance to build a mass base -- and because parties genuinely dissenting from the opposition have largely been kept from participating in the political process. But, if they continue in the course set by Allawi, they will use a similar combination of de facto and de jure repressive methods to invalidate any expression of the popular will just as Nuri did in 1954.

In conclusion, it's worth noting that this phrase, "first election in over 50 years," serves two purposes. One, of course, is to emphasize what America has done for Iraq (and simultaneously to rebut the ridiculous "naysayers" who say Arabs don't understand democracy). The second, much subtler and for a smaller audience, is to suggest that Iraq has only had free, democratic elections when it was under some degree of colonial subjugation. It is, of course, true that Iraq had no meaningful elections from 1958-2003, but those it has had under colonial domination, whether in 1954 or 2005, have been scarcely more meaningful -- and it was the unelected Qassim who pulled Iraq out of the Baghdad Pact and started Iraq down the road to nationalizing its oil so that the profits thereof could be enjoyed by the Iraqi people rather than by British Petroleum, Shell, Total, Exxon, and Mobil.

anyone ever see the movie "wag the dog?"

Anon Cow,

Funny, I don't remember seeing Bobby Jindal or any other Republican pol picking up a weapon and standing a post. But maybe I just missed it... I didn't say American soldiers shouldn't paint their fingers in a show of solidarity, just that these jokers, 99% of whom have ZERO idea what its like to be in a war zone, shouldn't.

Nik, while I originally misunderstood your comment to mean that no Americans (soldiers or not) have any right to take part in such symbolism, my premise is still the same: It's fitting and appropriate for these senators and representatives to engage in that symbolism because they are the representatives of America.

But I can totally understand derision with such an act- after all, they are politicians...

Hah, as I am just about to hit "Post", Tom Begala on CNN's Crossfire (I usually never watch it... honest!) starts off on a rant against Bobby Jindal and the purple finger.

oh god, do i have to have Begala on my side??

Bobby Jindal doesnt have the courage to tell people his real name... so how can we expect courage to pick up a gun an stand a post??

well, why don't we e-mail some of the Iraqi bloggers and see what they think of the gesture? Oh, yeah. Sorry. That might be imposing our Western notions of free speech and democracy on them.

(So, no red or pink ribbons in solidarity for AIDS victims or breast cancer survivors for this crowd, huh?)

"Abandoning diplomatic circumspection, the top U.N. electoral expert on Tuesday praised the vote in Iraq as one of the most moving she had ever seen.

Carina Perelli, who has helped advise on dozens of elections from East Timor to the Palestinian terrotories, called the Jan. 30 election a "dignified, peaceful demonstration" of Iraqi's will......

"I have participated in many elections in my life and I usually say that the day you lose your ability to be moved by people going to vote, you should change your career.."

Link

Let's see, how did this election take place? Hmmm, what event could have led up to this event happening? Hmm, U.N. conference? Sanctions?Praying and wishing real hard? What or what could have allowed this thing to happen?

What or what could have allowed this thing to happen?

The president, national security adviser, secretary of defense and secretary of state lying their asses off, spending a third of the largest economy's annual output and killing 15000 innocent people while turning a blind eye to Saudi terrorists (y'know, those who attacked us) and Pakistani proliferation, yes, those would be prerequisites.

"clever is clever"? I'm admittedly biased against him, but he looked like a grinnin' idiot.

It was way too showy and, given his political positions, more than a little hypocritical to pretend that he stands with the disempowered. Then again, he is a Republican from the South.

What or what could have allowed this thing to happen?

The president, national security adviser, secretary of defense and secretary of state lying their asses off, spending a third of the largest economy's annual output and killing 15000 innocent people while turning a blind eye to Saudi terrorists (y'know, those who attacked us) and Pakistani proliferation, yes, those would be prerequisites.

I was moved by what I saw about the election also, but I would also add to this list of reasons not to take this as vindication for the dumbass strategy that led to it:

a leadership with a misguided understanding of how democratic societies (vs. the outer, symbolic markings of democracy) are actually created; an American elite that bears few personal consequences of the same magnitude as the soldiers or the country attacked from its decisions on war and peace; narrow conceptions of national self-interest; a quest for control over resources; misguided priorities; and poor notions of the current state of geopolitics.

I think that everyone who's clapping their hands here naively needs to look at exactly WHO WAS ELECTED .

It was an Ayatollah.

Yes, that's right. Billions of American tax dollars and thousands of troops dead to elect a freaking Islamic fundamentalist, next door to an Islamic fundamentalist regime (Iran) that just happens to be the same religion as the elected guy. In other words, we've just given Iran control over Iraq. And it doesn't even make Israel secure, so Steven Schwartz, Bill Kristol, Abram Shulsky, and the rest of the gang haven't gotten anything accomplished with their successful hijacking of the US government.

We're talking about a lose-lose situation. But at least from a propaganda/world reputation standpoint, it's probably not going to be the end of the US, if we can pull our troops out and let the fundamentalists we've put in power behead each other in peace.

But if the ziocons in the admin decide that it's time for war with Iran - to foment further permanent revolution with the stars and stripes rather than the hammer and sickle - then all bets are off.

Next up on from sepia mutiny commenters - condemnation for Indian military assistance to Bangladesh (former East Pakistan) during it's bid for independence from West Pakistan. Oh, how many people died from Indian weapons! The horror! Stop the occupation of Kashmir! UN administered elections now, I tell you! Now!

Sanctions killed 50,000 Iraqi's a year, and the war killed 100,000 (Lancet article outside confidence interval based on a total of 60 or so deaths statistically projected to between several thousand to 100,000). 1 million died during the Iran Iraq war which Saddam Hussein started. But, the elections had a much better turnout and at least the Iraqi's knew who they were voting for. And he got 120 % of the vote. So there.

As for Bobby Piyush Jindal - he will be sent to a Hinduvata re-education camp to learn how to be a good desi. First - drop the GOP. Second - reconvert to Hinduism. Third - make sure you let people know that Indian culture is superior to Western culture (taking care of old people, dropping non-desi girlfriends after parents call to complain....). Any and all converts to Christianity from Hinduiism are suspect and should be disavowed. They are not *true* desi.

I am happy that a Shia crescent is finally developing in the Middle East, stretching from Iran, via Iraq, Syria to Lebanon with Bahrain as its moon.
The Shias have long been denied control in Arab countries where they are majorities like Iraq, Bahrain and Lebanon.
I just feel sorry for Bobby Jindal. I can empathize with his pain of not being accepted and taking drastic steps like converting to Christianity to become more mainstream. Who knows how much hell he got for being Hindu/Indian when he was growing up.

Let's take a look at the average Iraq war supporter:

>> False moral equivalence: since someone else killed a bunch of people, it's ok that we kill a bunch of people

>> Parsimonious with helping people (Social Security), spendthrift with killing them

>> Adept at tracking the lies of foreign leaders, rolls over like a pussycat for the lies of own leaders

>> Shifty, Humpty-Dumpty aims: "When I use a word [or justify a war], it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."

>> No interest in actually solving terrorism or WMDs

I take offense with your statements, Al-Mujahid. They are a slap in the face for anyone who has converted to Christianity - you essentially say that all converts are doing it for personal gain, not personal belief.

Also implicit in your comment is that he became less of an Indian when he converted. Can a Christian be as much Indian as a Hindu? It would be politically incorrect to say "No", but I get the feeling that most people feel that way inside.

Growing up as a Christian Indian in the South does not prevent a person from being on the receiving end of taunts and bullying. Hindu-related taunts are just a facade for racial and class bullying.

If you're an Indian Christian, the reality is that you're not fully accepted by American society and you're not fully accepted by Indian society. Mainstream my ass.

Highjack...

It is interesting that having read BBC's talking point/have your say comments on the elections, majority of those who were sending their comments in from Iraq were much more positive about the elections. In a venue not know for its 'pro-american' views, it was interesting to see how the same arugments as above were being rehashed by those NOT in Iraq.

The Iraqis on the other hand seemed to take a very pragmatic view. They understand violence exits, they understand that there is a very difficult road ahead, but they also seem to feel that taking CONTROL of their own affairs will get the Americans out of their hair along with insurgents.

A blurb of news thats out there among the chatter

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200502/s1295847.htm

A group of Iraqi villages kill some insurgents who came after them for voting. Now that is a step in the right direction of taking control of their own little village.

If you're an Indian Christian, the reality is that you're not fully accepted by American society and you're not fully accepted by Indian society. Mainstream my ass.

Right there with you, bro!

If you're an Indian Christian, the reality is that you're not fully accepted by American society...

On the flip side, I've heard Indian Christians say they are more comfortable mingling in the U.S. than other Indians are, because they've already spent years mingling at their local church.

He's not a Christian...he's a politician.