"The Edsel of Iraq"

Harsh words, but after seeing the graphic associated withthis article, perhaps it's as good an assessment as any:

Much of the problem was lack of foresight. The Humvee comes in an armored version, but military leaders initially saw little need for it, and the Bush administration did not bet on a prolonged insurgency in Iraq. Now that roadside bombs have become a weapon of choice, every Humvee rolling off the line at AM General, the Indiana-based maker, is the more rugged kind.

"The way we thought we would use trucks five or six years ago is different than the way we are using them today," said Lt. Gen. Claude V. Christianson, the Army's deputy chief of staff for logistics, in an interview earlier this month at the Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona.

"We had planned and organized our forces so that we would have an area that we owned, and we'd have boundaries, and we'd have a front line, and we'd have a rear area," he said. "The trucks that we use to deliver supplies would be driving along roads that were relatively secure. Today's battlefield is not like that."

"Lack of foresight" could serve as a ready explanation for almost any element of the war in Iraq, not just the vehicles. But even factory armored Humvees won't turn the tide. And, to change topics just a bit, Scaramouche has as good a comment as any regarding the 'election:'

Yesterday, the people voted for slates without knowing the major players, the candidate's names, or their stand on issues. (I don't know anybody who would even set up their Fantasy Football League under these conditions.)

Indeed.

Besides, when those who were elected FINALLY complete their work, IF they complete it (the winners of the "election" are delegates to a body which will draft a constitution), is there any guarantee at all that what they produce will have any force of law? As Patrick Cockburn writes:

In the immediate future, the election changes little in Iraq. The world is full of parliaments duly elected by a free ballot but power stays elsewhere, with the army, the security services or, in the case of Iraq today, an occupying foreign power.

It's an occupying foreign power that can't control basic security, even when on what was undoubtedly the highest level of alert seen since the fall of Baghdad (it still amazes me that "35 dead" is somehow just fine by some--as if these people killed trying to vote are nothing more than window dressing--numbers, without name, face, friends or family). What will happen once the order to stand down is given?

You know, the vote was conducted in the absence of internationally recognized monitors (it was too dangerous). If such a "demonstration election" was held by a client state of anyone BUT the United States, do you think anyone would consider it legitimate? Imagine if Nicaragua had tried this in the 1980's--Reagan would have popped a blood vessel hollering about it. Yet, this is just how desperate the Bush policy in Iraq has become--they're willing to go to almost any length to pronounce something a "success," even when it means basically stomping and spitting on the bodies of those killed. "Only 35 dead."

That's sick.

But it fits in perfectly with the slapdash method of thinking by the Bush administration, which not only showed ZERO foresight, but refused to seriously make plans once it became apparent that they screwed things up--badly. Sure, they were dragged into the "election" itself, as Swopa ably pointed out. However, that really doesn't change anything. And, if things continue to go as they are, there will be A LOT of wingnuts who will rue the day that they decided to bray to the effect that you only had two choices with Iraq--immediate war or perpetual Saddam-love. Because certain people among that crowd and their fellow travellers (offhand, I'm thinking Henry Kissinger and Richard Perle) would leap at the opportunity to put in someone just as brutal as Saddam--hell, Perle STILL thinks Chalabi should be the viceroy--and call it a day.

This bodes very badly for the future of "democracy" in Iraq. Any serious analysis of the situation, which by definition means we can forget about the 'kumbaya' statements written for Bush to memorize, will make it clear that we never HAD a plan for democracy in Iraq. What that means is that, regardless of how the vote--or any subsequent vote--turns out, there is no real groundwork for anything approaching genuine representative government. What is being developed, in a de facto way, is the means for one or another (or several) militias to take control of various areas--by force--once the US finally withdraws.

As for those who were shot, run over, tortured, blasted to death by cluster bombs, or victimized by terrorists taking advantage of the power vacuum, well, that's be their tough luck. For those US soldiers killed or wounded in combat--or in non-combat accidents--well, tough luck for them as well. Don't expect Bush to consider the ramifications of his actions. But the "new" Iraq is in no way going to be any kind of model--except for how wrong things can get when you lack any degree of foresight. And the answer to that could be "very wrong," "very, very wrong," or "very dangerously wrong." None are particularly good--so let's hope for that which is least bad...