Catering to the Sunnis
Catering to the Sunnis
By Andrew L. Jaffee; netwmd.com
If the Oklahoma City bombers refused to participate in a U.S. election, would the final results be considered “illegitimate?” What if the Nation of Islam, the Black Panthers, the Communist Party USA, or the Southern Indiana Regional Militia refused to vote in American elections? Would it matter and, really, who gives a damn?
The Left-Wing, e.g. the New York Times, has been trying to hold the Iraqi elections to this type of ridiculous standard regarding Sunni participation.
Granted: Sunnis make up 32-37% of Iraq’s population. While their representation is important, the majority of terrorist attacks aimed at destabilizing Iraq have been committed by Sunnis. The Sunni minority, led by Saddam, have terrorized Iraq’s other ethnic/religious groups for decades. They fear losing their old power, which they will most surely lose no matter what happens. Once the votes are counted, we’ll find that the Shiite majority and Iraq’s other ethnic groups (Kurds, Turkoman) did not vote for their former torturers.
Sunni violence has specifically targeted Iraq’s Shiites, but Shiites have showed enormous restraint. They have not reacted with violence. Iraqi Shiites have shown great courage, determination, and social maturity, waiting to vote instead of plotting revenge.
Despite the facts on the ground, Left-Wing rags like the New York Times run around peddling drivel like:
Sunni participation is crucial to the election. While a Sunni boycott remains far from certain and some Sunni leaders still hold out hope for a turnaround, American officials fear that if large numbers of Sunnis do not vote, the election will be regarded as illegitimate and may even feed the insurgency that has gripped much of the country.
Blah, blah, blah. The Seattle Times reported that,
Unofficial figures from Anbar [a largely Sunni area] revealed that only about 17,000 of as many as 250,000 eligible voters participated. According to those numbers, 1,700 people voted in Ramadi, a city of nearly 400,000 residents; 8,000 in Fallujah, half the size of Ramadi; and about 5,000 in neighboring Nassar Wa Alsalaam, a mostly agricultural community. But in Sunni areas of Baghdad, the turnout appeared heavy.
These Sunnis voted, despite the very real threat of being kidnapped, beheaded, shot, blown up – just name any type of evil deed and al-Qaeda thug Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi is sure to use it. His pathetic and hysterical warning of a “war on democracy” obviously didn’t affect all his fellow Sunnis. Imagine the kind of courage it took for the Sunnis who voted, knowing full well they were being watched by terrorist informants, and marked for some type of gruesome reprisal.
Talk about courage – courage that American and European lefties don’t have, taking for granted the opulence and security provided to them by the democratic nations they inhabit.
This is proof-positive that not all Sunnis can be lumped into some type of all-encompassing generalization (or “de-legitimization”) of Iraq’s historic elections. Never mind the fact that Iraq’s interim president, Ghazi Yawer, is a Sunni. Never mind the fact that one of Iraq’s most prominent Shiite leaders insisted on January 7 that Sunnis will be included in a national unity government “irrespective of how their parties fare in the polls.”
The poor, desperate, hysterical Left-Wing. They’re running out of reasons to criticize the liberation of Iraq. But give them time; they’ll invent more. Just yesterday, John Kerry had to make an irrelevant glass-is-half-empty remark that,
No one in the United States should try to over-hype this election. This election is a sort of demarcation point, and what really counts now is the effort to have a legitimate political reconciliation that is going to take a massive diplomatic effort and a much more significant outreach to the international community than this administration has been willing to engage in.
This coming from a man who can’t make up his mind about anything. Let’s see, Kerry voted to support the war in Iraq. He voted for regime change in Iraq twice (1998 and 2002). Then Kerry voted against funding our troops in Iraq, stating “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.” Two weeks before that, he told CBS, “I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops.” Kerry called himself an “anti-war candidate” but then said he supported the war.
This is one point I can generalize on: The Left-Wing is decrepit, washed out, and useless. Most of the time, one would hope that a democracy has a real need for an opposition party/parties of some type. Problem is, we just don’t have an opposition that is worth a dime at this point in history.
First, the Left screamed that Iraq’s elections were too far off. Then they decided the elections were too early. The Left simultaneously demands more troops be in Iraq while urging the troops be brought home immediately (e.g., Kennedy). Now they have invented a “legitimacy” concern about Sunni participation.
Even the great United Nations is now eating crow:
The UN's senior election official in Iraq, Carlos Valenzuela, told BBC News he was pleased that more people than expected "defied the threat of violence to go and vote".
He said a precise turnout figure would not be known for several weeks, but it appeared higher numbers of Sunnis than expected turned out to vote.
Illegitimate? Not even close. 60% of registered Iraqis turned out, equaling American turnout in the November 2004 election. And this 60% of Iraqis voted under the fear of homicide bombings, beheadings, throat-slashing, gun fire, etc. 60% of Iraqis voted in the midst of a war.
I am 100% certain that Sunnis will be represented in a new Iraqi government no matter what the final vote tally. Iraq’s Shittes, Kurds, Turkoman, etc., will insist upon it, not because they are afraid, but because they want democracy to work in their homeland.
Call me an eternal optimist, just don’t call me a Leftist. It is time to stop all the hand-wringing over Sunni participation. That fact that some Sunnis were brave enough to vote is good enough for me. The Sunnis will come around eventually. If they don’t, they be faced with the full force and determination of Iraqis who chose free will. A free man or woman will fight much more tenaciously than a slave. Just look at how free people, American soldiers, took out Saddam in a mere three week’s time.
Cross-posted at IsraPundit and netwmd.com
Posted by Andrew Jaffee at February 1, 2005 10:04 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/7670
1.
BobW
said:
Yes, it would matter if the Nation of Islam refused to participate in a US election. The worry would be by the political echelon and the directors of the national security apparatus. The Nation of Islam has ties to and is affiliated with other alieniated groups.
One major reason LBJ expanded Roosevelt's welfare programs was the fear generated from the Watts riots and later, the 1968 nationwide riots.
The NT Times has since lost its role. Its relegated to the People Magazine category.
It is not an issue of who is destabilizing Iraq. It is an issue that Iraq has not yet shown stabilization. Can the new government field a military force with aircraft to maintain stability? Can the new government field a national intelligence force? When the US leaves the above will be answered. Recall that the Shah of Iran had the world's largest helicopter fleet and Israel had the world's best intelligence service.
I do believe the election was successful but only because I believe Iraq is being governed as a condominium. The Sunni terrorists are irrelevant vis a vis the new governing arrangements.
Personally, I think Diane's DebkaFile people saying the vote was 40-45% as more accurate than a number well over half. All this reminds me of the Ayatollah Khomeini flying in from Paris to take over from the Shah of Iran.
Kol tuv,
BobW
Posted by: BobW on February 1, 2005 11:00 AM
2.
Marty
said:
The idea that millions of people having no representation is a good thing, is, well, not such a good idea. Iran's Shiites will soon be having very close ties with Iraq. Not good. Payback is second nature there. If the US controls Iraq to avoid this Iraq will be seen as a Western puppet, and lose all credibility as a democracy. Sunnis must be integrated or civil war will be assured.
Posted by: Marty on February 1, 2005 12:00 PM
3.
Ed D
said:
I totally agree with the author on his account of the those that go along for the ride, all the while complaining and hendering the efforts to have our freedoms. The so called "smart ones", the elite leftists, let us conservatives do all the fighting, possess all the courage and , above all, stand up for rights of this world. No one likes war;however, sometimes the only thing terrorists and dictators understand is the power of the USA. Some one should let PM Sharon know.
Posted by: Ed D on February 1, 2005 03:47 PM
4.
Marty
said:
I am sure there are many, many, many, thousands who have served in Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, WWII, Panama, and elsewhere, who lost theirs life (if they could know) and limbs, who would be shocked to learn that they are conservatives, and that it is the conservatives that do all the fighting, possess all the courage and, above all, stand up for rights of this world.
Posted by: Marty on February 1, 2005 04:25 PM
5.
Steve Jackson
said:
It wouldn't matter a hill of beans if the Nation of Islam refused to particpate. Of course, someone would try to make a big to-do out of it (e.g., the ACLU), but it would have no effect whatsoever on a U.S. election's legitimacy. Middle America, which held sway in re-electing Bush in 2004 wouldn't give a hoot if the Nation of Islam boycotted anything. Your notion of "The worry would be by the political echelon and the directors of the national security apparatus. The Nation of Islam has ties to and is affiliated with other alieniated groups." is pure fantasy and/or X-Files conspiracy theory.
Posted by: Steve Jackson on February 1, 2005 05:26 PM
6.
BobW
said:
Shalom Steve,
If you reread my post and reflect on it, you will understand why affirmative action and the related EEO programs are now part of Middle America. It's not fantasy.
Glance at the new Congressional districts such as North Carolina's 1st and 12th and Virginia's 3rd. These,amongst others, were created in reaction to the alienated blacks.
The ACLU (and ADL)have been discredited. Their members are monitored.
As recently as 1 generation ago, America's largest and richest minorities were blacks and Jews, respectively. As a response to Middle America's concerns and fears, America's largest and richest minorities are now Mexican-Americans and overseas Chinese, respectively. Review the immigration programs to see how this was arranged. Middle America did indeed worry about the alieniated black population and political power. It is being addressed to this day.
If you do not believe the Nation of Islam has foreign funding sources, you will not understand the power shift in America. This was, and continues to be, Middle America's reaction to blacks and Jews. Both groups are now being relegated to the margins.
Kol tuv,
BobW
Posted by: BobW on February 2, 2005 01:43 AM
Post a comment
|
Catering to the Sunnis
By Andrew L. Jaffee; netwmd.com
If the Oklahoma City bombers refused to participate in a U.S. election, would the final results be considered “illegitimate?” What if the Nation of Islam, the Black Panthers, the Communist Party USA, or the Southern Indiana Regional Militia refused to vote in American elections? Would it matter and, really, who gives a damn?
The Left-Wing, e.g. the New York Times, has been trying to hold the Iraqi elections to this type of ridiculous standard regarding Sunni participation.
Granted: Sunnis make up 32-37% of Iraq’s population. While their representation is important, the majority of terrorist attacks aimed at destabilizing Iraq have been committed by Sunnis. The Sunni minority, led by Saddam, have terrorized Iraq’s other ethnic/religious groups for decades. They fear losing their old power, which they will most surely lose no matter what happens. Once the votes are counted, we’ll find that the Shiite majority and Iraq’s other ethnic groups (Kurds, Turkoman) did not vote for their former torturers.
Sunni violence has specifically targeted Iraq’s Shiites, but Shiites have showed enormous restraint. They have not reacted with violence. Iraqi Shiites have shown great courage, determination, and social maturity, waiting to vote instead of plotting revenge.
Despite the facts on the ground, Left-Wing rags like the New York Times run around peddling drivel like:
Blah, blah, blah. The Seattle Times reported that,
These Sunnis voted, despite the very real threat of being kidnapped, beheaded, shot, blown up – just name any type of evil deed and al-Qaeda thug Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi is sure to use it. His pathetic and hysterical warning of a “war on democracy” obviously didn’t affect all his fellow Sunnis. Imagine the kind of courage it took for the Sunnis who voted, knowing full well they were being watched by terrorist informants, and marked for some type of gruesome reprisal.
Talk about courage – courage that American and European lefties don’t have, taking for granted the opulence and security provided to them by the democratic nations they inhabit.
This is proof-positive that not all Sunnis can be lumped into some type of all-encompassing generalization (or “de-legitimization”) of Iraq’s historic elections. Never mind the fact that Iraq’s interim president, Ghazi Yawer, is a Sunni. Never mind the fact that one of Iraq’s most prominent Shiite leaders insisted on January 7 that Sunnis will be included in a national unity government “irrespective of how their parties fare in the polls.”
The poor, desperate, hysterical Left-Wing. They’re running out of reasons to criticize the liberation of Iraq. But give them time; they’ll invent more. Just yesterday, John Kerry had to make an irrelevant glass-is-half-empty remark that,
This coming from a man who can’t make up his mind about anything. Let’s see, Kerry voted to support the war in Iraq. He voted for regime change in Iraq twice (1998 and 2002). Then Kerry voted against funding our troops in Iraq, stating “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.” Two weeks before that, he told CBS, “I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops.” Kerry called himself an “anti-war candidate” but then said he supported the war.
This is one point I can generalize on: The Left-Wing is decrepit, washed out, and useless. Most of the time, one would hope that a democracy has a real need for an opposition party/parties of some type. Problem is, we just don’t have an opposition that is worth a dime at this point in history.
First, the Left screamed that Iraq’s elections were too far off. Then they decided the elections were too early. The Left simultaneously demands more troops be in Iraq while urging the troops be brought home immediately (e.g., Kennedy). Now they have invented a “legitimacy” concern about Sunni participation.
Even the great United Nations is now eating crow:
Illegitimate? Not even close. 60% of registered Iraqis turned out, equaling American turnout in the November 2004 election. And this 60% of Iraqis voted under the fear of homicide bombings, beheadings, throat-slashing, gun fire, etc. 60% of Iraqis voted in the midst of a war.
I am 100% certain that Sunnis will be represented in a new Iraqi government no matter what the final vote tally. Iraq’s Shittes, Kurds, Turkoman, etc., will insist upon it, not because they are afraid, but because they want democracy to work in their homeland.
Call me an eternal optimist, just don’t call me a Leftist. It is time to stop all the hand-wringing over Sunni participation. That fact that some Sunnis were brave enough to vote is good enough for me. The Sunnis will come around eventually. If they don’t, they be faced with the full force and determination of Iraqis who chose free will. A free man or woman will fight much more tenaciously than a slave. Just look at how free people, American soldiers, took out Saddam in a mere three week’s time.
Cross-posted at IsraPundit and netwmd.com
Posted by Andrew Jaffee at February 1, 2005 10:04 AM