Yes, it’s very impressive.

I just touched on this a few days ago, but I would like to revisit the Iraqi elections that were held on January 31.

These provincial elections were held in 14 of the country's 18 provinces (Kurdistan will hold separate elections, and the disputed oil-rich city of Kirkuk was deemed "too hard" at present).

These were the first post-Saddam elections that the Iraqis completely handled by themselves and if I may say so, they did an incredible job.

Contrary to what some commentators (mainly those on the left that will always refuse to acknowledge any progress in Iraq due to their hysterical opposition to the War) are claiming, participation was very good, by both voters and candidates running for office.

The voter turnout was 51%; a figure used by those that, if they do not want to see Iraq fail, than they are, at best, indifferent to their success, to show a flawed election.

However, before I go into the 51% figure, I would just like to take a moment to note that some are calling a 51% voter turnout a disappointing showing for an election in Iraq.

That’s right…an election in Iraq.

This is absolutely absurd as a democratic election in Iraq, even as recent as seven years ago, was such an unthinkable idea that no one would ever discuss the possibility of such a thing. The progress that has been made there is almost unbelievable.

But back to the 51%. This was a provincial election, not a general election where a prime minister would be voted in or out of office, thus making the stakes not nearly as high as some elections.

To put that into perspective, take a look at the turnouts for our last two Congressional elections:

2006: 41.3%

2002: 40.5%

Notice anything?

We would kill to have participation like that in this country, so can we please stop criticizing the 51%?

In regards to candidates, there were 14,412 candidates running for office, many of which were women and some overtly secular.

I think these figures can finally put to rest the ridiculous claim that Iraqis are not interested in democracy.

Then there is the issue of the Sunnis. In 2005, the Sunnis all but completely sat out the elections out of protest.

Not this time.

This time, 40% of voters in the overwhelmingly Sunni province of Anbar went to the polls; four years ago, turnout was 2%. In fact, turnout in some of the Sunni areas was as high as 65%.

This is extremely encouraging to say the least as it shows that Iraqis are starting to view themselves as Iraqis, not merely as Shia and Sunni.

In addition to the strong Iraqi participation, these elections also had something else that greatly contributed to their success.

That something? Peace.

The shocking lack of relative violence was just that…shocking.

The election featured international observers in all 712 constituencies, in 2005 terrorist attacks made that too dangerous. In addition, in 2005 more than 200 candidates were killed - this time, eight died. Four years ago, there were 299 terrorist attacks, this time there were only a small handful.

The peaceful polling was remarkable and so were the results. All the Islamic parties lost ground, especially the party associated with Moqtada al-Sadr, whose share of the vote went down from 11% to 3%.

The principal Sunni Islamic party, the Islamic Party of Iraq, was totally wiped out.

The only Islamic party to gain ground was the Dawa party of the Shia Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a man that’s proving to be an incredibly sound and capable leader.

The election is thus a big defeat for Iran, which had hoped that Shia religious parties would control the south and enable Iran to turn them into a mini Shia republic.

Sorry about, Mr. Ahmadinejad!

Were these elections perfect? No.

There were some discrepancies with voter lists that resulted in some voters being turned away at the polls and there were reports of Iraqi citizens being confused as to where to go to vote.

While these events are regrettable, based on the progress that has been already made in Iraq, I’m quite sure these issues will be ironed out for the next round of elections.

By the way, more U.S. soldiers died in accidents (12) than in combat (4) for the month of January.

Not that most of you didn't already know this, but the war is over.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John

Another major step for Iraq and the Middle East.

The more successful democracy becomes in the Mid East, the better it will be for citizens of the region and the world.

President Bush: The War on Terror-Iraq

So now we finally get to the juicy stuff don’t we? Enough already about what I think of President Bush’s personality or which presidents I would like to have a beer with.

Now we’re actually talking about issues, real issues that get people’s blood boiling, mouths moving, feet marching and tempers flaring.

Now we’re talking about war…literally, a life and death topic.

It’s no secret that President Bush’s global execution of the War on Terror (specifically Iraq) has been the most controversial and divisive issue in his eight years as president.

But why such division? Why such controversy? Why such strong opposition?

To me, the invasion of Iraq, subsequent overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party and development of Iraq’s new democracy was an extremely justified and noble endeavor.

I believe this because I share President Bush’s view of the War on Terror.

In a pre-9/11 world, we were content to let Hussein keep up his activity as long as he didn’t attack his neighbors, while remaining contained in Iraq. But as you all know, 9/11 changed everything.

With the Islamo-Fascist threat we currently face not having a home base to call their own; we need to root out terrorism everywhere it lives. By not doing so, we would be subjecting ourselves to the complacency and naivety that led to 9/11.

President Bush finally believed the old saying, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. He was not about to sit back and let a mad terrorist continue to intimidate an entire region and, for that matter, the rest of the world with his dangerous activities.

That’s right, whether people like to believe it or not, Saddam Hussein was a terrorist. This is not some right-wing theory that I’ve developed. This is a fact. He used biological weapons on Iranians and Kurds. He presented the families of suicide bombers with checks worth $25,000.

That is why he needed to be taken out, simple as that. He was a terrorist and after 9/11, terrorists were no longer going to be tolerated.

I think the reason so many people objected to this military action was because the administration needlessly complicated the issue.

We heard about the “stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction” and the “humanitarian good” we would be doing by going in. But see, those are dicey arguments to make.

First, we had intelligence that stated there were stockpiles of weapons, not facts and, as we know now, intelligence isn’t always what it’s cracked up to be.

Secondly, humanitarian aid, while a noble and just reason for intervening in Iraq, also brought up other instances where we failed to intervene when humanitarian aid was needed around the globe. It made the administration appear that they were making up reasons to go to war as they went along.

I think if President Bush had simply stated the following, the invasion of Iraq would’ve been better received:

My fellow Americans, due to the continued terrorist activity

committed by Saddam Hussein, his very presence endangers

not only the United States, but also the rest of the world. If

we sit idly by and let a known and unrepentant terrorist

continue to threaten his region and the rest of the world, it is

only a matter of time before someone, somewhere will pay

dearly for this indecision. As a result, I will authorize the

invasion of Iraq and elimination of Saddam Hussein. We will no

longer allow terrorists to roam free as an uneasy world hopes

for the best. Thank you.

Now, those that would oppose the invasion automatically, whether for moral objections to the war or just a blind hatred for everything President Bush stands for, would not have been swayed by this speech. However, those independents, those undecideds, those on the fence may have actually supported the invasion, rather than trashing it.

So to me, the President’s main failure was not the decision to into Iraq, but in his sales pitch to the American public. The reason this is important is because the invasion’s popularity, or lack there of, really made things difficult for President Bush’s second term.

By the way, does anyone else find it ironic that the same issue that President Bush’s critics point to to illustrate his ineptitude and deceptiveness is the same issue that his supporters point to to illustrate his greatness and courage? I think it’s pretty rare to see that happen.

So, I’ve established that I view the decision to invade Iraq as the proper one, now we have to look at the execution of the invasion.

The initial military strike was phenomenal by any measure. The “Shock and Awe” campaign, did just that, the vaunted Iraqi army proved to be absolutely no match for our military might and Baghdad fell with far, far, far fewer casualties than even the most optimistic experts estimated.

Not to get off topic, but do you guys remember “Baghdad Bob”, Saddam’s Information Minister? He was the guy that would announce to the media that Iraq was actually routing us and that we were on the run. He said things as absurd as:

"Today we (Iraq) slaughtered them (United States) in the airport. They are out of Saddam International Airport. The force that was in the airport, this force was destroyed."

"Be assured. Baghdad is safe, protected"

"We have them surrounded in their tanks"

I’m sorry, but if you don't find that funny, there's something wrong with you.

Ok, back on track here…

After the initial invasion until the troop surge…well, things were not so good in Iraq.

I do not blame President Bush for that, per se. Yes, he made a number of the personal appointments and those personal executed a less than flawless campaign, but that’s what happens in war. What we as a nation fail to understand is that war is a terribly difficult activity to properly carry out. There are going to be mistakes, there are going to be miscalculations, there are going to be casualties; as no war, no matter how just was ever perfectly executed.

That’s what we expected though: perfection. Now, part of that was due in no small part to the “Mission Accomplished” banner, a gargantuanly short-sided public relations stunt that really came back to hurt the administration after violence in Iraq increased.

The mistakes made in Iraq, however, pale in comparison to many other mistakes that were made in previous wars.

All one needs to do is look back to D-Day. While the initial invasion had fewer casualties than expected, the following weeks were a bloodbath. We lost over 80,000 troops in the hedgerows of France due to insufficient air cover and incorrect intelligence.

Now, does that mean we should not have conducted the D-Day invasion?

No, of course not.

But for some reason, we now seem to hold our military to unrealistic expectations. It’s as if we look at our military and say, “well, they’re not perfect therefore, they’re not good”.

Where I will heap abundant praise on President Bush, however, is in his decision to institute the troop surge.

Against conventional wisdom and the advice of every one of his senior staff of advisors, the administration sent more troops to Iraq and gave them a new commander (General David Petraeus) with a new strategy. Even President Bush's most vocal critics now acknowledge that Iraq is in far better shape than it was two years ago.

The surge, the Sunni Awakening and the pacification of the Anbar Province have allowed Iraq to rise from the ashes of civil war to a future that, while not brilliantly bright, certainly appears to be rather promising.

In fact, I will go so far to say that the war in Iraq is essentially over. The Iraqi military and police control security in over three quarters of the country, civilian and military deaths are at an all-time low and the few remaining terrorists have no real base of operation.

Iraq is a functioning democracy with a new round of elections right around the corner, something that seemed impossible three, six, even ten years ago.

Clearly, it is my opinion that President Bush made the correct decision to go into Iraq. In fact, I don’t even think it was a decision at all; we needed to go into Iraq. Now I know some will categorize me as a bloodthirsty, war-mongering, neo-con for this stance and that’s fine, I can handle that. What I would not have been able to handle was to have us sit idly by as another threat was allowed to run free, committing terrorist deed after terrorist deed.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John

The Iranian Problem

We are not at the point of no return…but it’s getting perilously close.

In a routine update released on Wednesday, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran has made 1,390 pounds of low-enriched uranium hexafluoride. This amount of uranium is enough to make one nuclear bomb.

Let me repeat that, Iran now has enough uranium to produce a nuclear bomb.

This is a frightening realization that the Iranian nuclear threat will be upon us far sooner than we feared.

This does not mean that they are ready to assemble a bomb, as two major steps that would precede such an event have yet to take place.

The first would be the eviction of IAEA inspectors. The processes of preparing uranium for a nuclear reactor that produces energy versus weaponry are vastly different and would be noticed by these inspectors rather quickly. The only fear with this, however, is that the Iranians have constructed secret nuclear facilities that are fully functional, something that is possible.

If they do not have these secret facilities, at least the expulsion of inspectors would alert the world to the nefarious activity in Iran. If world leaders possess enough will and fortitude to stand up to the Chinese and Russians (two staunch allies of Tehran) something could be done to stop the development of nuclear weapons. Forgive me if I’m a tad skeptical of that ever happening.

The second, and more difficult, step is the purification of the uranium to weapons-grade fuel. Once this fuel is enriched, it would have to be turned into a warhead design. This is step that Western intelligence agencies “doubt” that Iran has achieved.

They doubt that? That’s all we get, a doubt? We’re hanging our hopes of Iran not having the capabilities to produce a nuclear weapon in the near future on a doubt by intelligence agencies? Forgive me once again if I don’t exactly sleep soundly tonight.

So, what do we do about this?

Unfortunately, there aren’t many options.

I guess we can take the Iranians at their word and believe them when they say that the country with the third largest crude oil reserves in the world needs to develop nuclear technology for the sake of energy production.

I suppose we can also choose to believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny as well.

One obvious, dynamic move would be President Bush ordering an aerial attack on all Iranian nuclear facilities. This attack would echo the action taken by Israel in September of 2007 as they attack a suspected nuclear facility in Syria. This attack halted Syria’s nuclear activities and failed to incite a war or even intensify attacks on the Israeli people.

This type of response seems fairly unlikely as President Bush is consumed by the current economic situation and seems unwilling to make any political waves in his last 60 days in office.

I do know one person that may be hoping that he does carry out such an attack. That person is Barrack Obama.

If nothing is done in the next two months to stop the Iranian nuclear program, Obama may be saddled with a problem that dwarfs the current economic problems facing the country.

If I’m Obama, this is what I do:

I approach President Bush in secret and ask him to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities to effectively shut down it’s program.

I suspect Bush would go for it for numerous reasons:

• He knows that they’re developing nuclear weapons and that puts us at risk and I firmly believe that this man (Bush) wants what’s best for America.
• He knows that if Iran does develop a nuclear weapon(s), he will be blamed for allowing it to happen, rightly or wrongly.
• If Iran does develop said nuclear weapons, it will shift the balance of power in the Middle East significantly to Iran and seriously jeopardize all of the progress that has been made in Iraq and, as we all know, a successful Iraq is Bush’s last hope for a solid legacy.
• His loyal base of supporters will support this action and think even better of him.
• This will serve as payback for the Iranian’s support of the insurgency in Iraq.

I would preface this request by telling President Bush that, in public, I will denounce this action as more of the same unilateral actions that led this country to the mistakes made in Iraq.

Now, you may wonder why I would suggest that Obama take this approach and not just attack Iran on his own. Well, it would certainly not sit well with his base of supporters and, after all, he has another election to win.

This approach would allow action to be taken on Iran without Obama having to suffer the consequences from his base. Additionally, this would actually help President Bush’s political standing as much of his base have become less and less enamored with his administration after the past four years.

I don’t think the worldwide political fallout would be that serious either. With the price of oil extremely low and the current economic downturn ensuring it will probably stay that way for some time, there would be little effect economically.

Iran’s staunchest allies (Russia and China) would have a relatively weak response to the attack as well. Both are dealing with serious, domestic economic issues that require political action and resources. Furthermore, Russia lacks the credibility to criticize this action after their invasion of Georgia in August.

Plus, how many countries, no matter what their “official” response would be, would not be ecstatic that the threat of a nuclear Iran is erased? I doubt there would be even one that wouldn’t welcome this development.

So let’s see here…

We eliminate an extraordinarily dangerous situation from developing in the most tumultuous region of the globe? Check.

It helps both the current and future president politically? Check.

There will be little, if any, international outcry? Check.

I think I may be on to something here people.

I know some may scoff at this approach, claiming it to be a simplistic view of a complicated situation and that’s fine. To them I say; what else should we do?

I will patiently wait for a response.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John

The U.S.-Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement

Perhaps the most important foreign policy event of 2008 happened over the weekend with surprisingly very little fanfare.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's cabinet approved, by a 21-7 vote, a status of forces agreement with the U.S, effectively giving a hard deadline as to when U.S. troops will finally leave Iraq.

While the agreement still needs to pass the Iraqi Parliament with a simple 51% majority, it appears that this is a done deal.

Now, I have been extremely leery of establishing a timetable for our withdrawal from Iraq, however, I think this deal works our well for us, Iraq and the Middle East in general.

Not all of the details have been released, but here are the specifics we know:

• U.S. forces will withdraw from Iraq's populated areas by June 2009.
• All U.S. forces will be gone by 2011.
• US soldiers will not be immune to Iraqi law if they commit crimes on Iraqi territory.
• Agrees to a 10-year mandate for the U.S. to guarantee the security of Iraq, in exchange for the right to use Iraqi land, waters and skies to base and train troops and store military equipment.
• Pledges that the U.S. will protect Iraq from any war, coup or revolution.
• Commissions the building of 50 U.S. military bases in Iraq.
• Establishes long-term, American supervision of the Iraqi Ministry of Interior and Defense.
• Gives the U.S. the right to arrest or persecute any Iraqi working against its interests, within Iraq.
• Grants the U.S. control of Iraqi airspace.
• Does not rule out delaying the troop pullout if conditions on the ground warrant their presence beyond 2011.

As you can see, while we won’t be “waging a war” in Iraq we will still hold a significant presence there.

I know many people in this country want us to be completely finished in Iraq, but I think this presence is extremely necessary. There are many in the Middle East (the Iranian government, the Syrian Government, Al-Qaeda and Hamas, just to name a few) that have a vested interest in seeing the democratic advances made by Iraq fail. Our extended presence gives the Iraqis a security blanket while they continue to advance their already dramatic democratic strides.

This is so critical, because if we want democracy to have a real chance of spreading throughout the Middle East, Iraq must succeed. If Iraq does succeed and leads to other democratically run governments in the region, perhaps then we can really begin to talk about putting an end to global terrorism.

As important as supporting Iraq, the agreement also gives us an even stronger foothold in the Middle East, allowing us to:

• Closely monitor the nuclear activities conducted by Iran.
• Prevent a rogue group like Hamas or Al-Qaeda from filling a power vacuum should the Maliki government collapse.
• Put Syria on notice that if they continue their terrorist activity, we’ll be right there to take them out.
• Show the Iranian people that if they want to overthrow their oppressive government (which there is a movement to do) that we’ll be there to support them.
• Illustrate to the rest of the world that we are serious about ending global terrorism and will stop at nothing to ensure our success.
• Help negate the Chinese and Russian influence in the region.
• Ensure a legitimate and safe round of elections next year.

Predictably, Iran is irate over this agreement (another example of why this agreement is so important and beneficial). Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani (the official head of the Iranian state) called on the Maliki government to think twice before committing Iraq to an agreement that Iraqis considered "a pact of humiliation".

Maliki politely declined, continuing to prove that he is no “pawn of Iran” as his critics claimed. As if this was even in question after he ordered routs -- by the Iraq army -- of Shiite militias in Basra and Sadr City last spring.

Despite his critics inside and out of Iraq, Maliki is proving to be an effective leader that is not merely looking out for the interests of Sunnis, but rather Iraq as a whole. With the help of the U.S., he has managed to control the sectarian violence that was tearing the country apart for four years. Additionally, he brought together an incredibly divisive group of political leaders and convinced them to put their differences aside and work toward the greater good of Iraq.

With leaders like Maliki, diplomacy like the status of forces agreement and strong support from the U.S. government and military forces, Iraq appears to be headed for success…something that was literally unthinkable a mere 20 months ago.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John