Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (95212)	1/14/2005 5:07:58 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793543

LET IRAQIS VOTE New York Post By RALPH PETERS IS Iraq ready to hold perfect, orderly, all-inclusive elections? Of course not. But by the unfair standards critics are raising, the United States might not qualify for nation-wide balloting, either. Iraq's elections are going to be deadly, disorderly and deeply flawed. And they will still be the most open and authentic elections ever held in the Arab world. Anyone who needs proof of the importance of these polls need only look at the ferocity and duplicity of those intent on delaying or preventing them. From Islamic terrorists to The New York Times, the enemies of free elections in Iraq have a common goal: They desperately want the American experiment in bringing democracy to the Middle East to fail — the first for reasons of power, the latter to regain its lost prestige. The terrorists' alarm is understandable. Ditto for the Sunni Arab insurgents. They could never win an election in Iraq, and they know it. The terrorists believe in religious tyranny, while the insurgents believe in secular tyranny. Neither care in the least about the aspirations of the common people. For its part, the Times believes in the tyranny of the intelligentsia. Blinded by its hatred for the Bush administration, it attempts to portray every development in Iraq as a disaster. Even marginally successful Iraqi elections would prove it wrong yet again. Shouldn't we raise an eyebrow when we find America's self-proclaimed "newspaper of record" shoulder-to-shoulder with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the leftovers of Saddam Hussein's regime? Does the NYT really want the terrorists to win? Is their editorial vanity so great? American critics of the elections lately have shifted to complaints that the Sunni Arabs may not be adequately represented in the voting. In other words, if less than 20 percent of potential voters choose not to participate it negates the election's validity. By that measure, the United States hasn't held a valid election in living memory. The critics whine that the poor Sunni Arabs aren't ready. The truth is that the Sunni Arabs, who benefited under Saddam at the expense of the majority Shi'a and the Kurds, will never admit that they're ready for elections. Elections mean they lose. If the elections were postponed for a decade, the Sunni Arabs would still argue that they needed more time. Well, if they refuse to vote, it's a lick on 'em. And if they're too cowardly to vote, they don't deserve the benefits of democracy. Let those who brave the bullets and bombs shape Iraq's future. The truth is that some Sunni Arabs will show up to vote, at great risk. But even if not one participated, it would still leave us with over 80 percent of Iraqis anxious to go to the polls. The days of the dictatorship of the Sunni Arab minority are over in Iraq. They don't like it. And that's just tough. The Sunni Arabs need a dose of reality, not coddling. The U.S. occupation was far too indulgent toward them from the beginning. They need tough love, not crocodile tears. The issue the critics avoid like a leper's kiss is that any delay would hand the terrorists a victory. Wringing their hands about the level of violence in Iraq, democracy's opponents on the Upper West Side insist that voting requires higher levels of security. Do they imagine that an election delay would make the violence subside? On the contrary, the terrorists and insurgents would believe — rightly — that they had triumphed. Attacks would increase, more recruits would flock to terror's cause (everybody loves a winner), and democracy would recede beyond the far horizon. Less than a year ago, the same critics wailed that democracy couldn't work in Afghanistan, that Afghans would be too afraid to vote or would vote for bigots and warlords. Instead, millions turned out to elect a moderate technocrat backed by the West. Iraq is more complex than Afghanistan. The election may disappoint us, in its conduct, its results, or both. But you have to start somewhere. You can't play the intellectual's game of endless procrastination, sunk in dreams of impossible perfection. There is no substitute for the courage to act. We may find ourselves facing a post-election government less receptive to our ideas, more fractious or even hostile to our presence. That's democracy. Let the people speak. But don't listen to the terrorists, the insurgents or The New York Times, all of whom are committed to denying a voice to the majority of Iraqis. Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and a regular Post contributor.