Month: January 2005

Here’s an email worth treasuring:

Andrew, you should have been here today.
Today, the insurgents lost.
Regardless of what happens tomorrow or the next day, or the day after that, today, the insurgents lost.
Tonite, the bombs and the mortars, and the gunshots which still echo in the streets, sound different.
Men and women, whose children, whose mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, have been murdered by madmen, took a few simple, but very difficult steps, out of their homes and into polling stations.
There will be debates about turnout, and legitimacy, and occupation, and every other conceivable thing, but everyone who is here right now, knows something extraordinary happened today.
Today, the insurgents lost.

I don’t want to be excitable, but aren’t you feeling euphoric? It’s almost a classic tale of good defeating evil. We always needed the Iraqi people to seize freedom for themselves. Given the chance, they have. This is their victory, made possible by those amazing Western troops. This day eclipses – although, alas, it cannot undo – any errors we have made. Only freedom can defeat terror. Today, freedom won.

Money quote from the NYT:

The [57 percent turnout] figure was based on national returns, Mr. Ayar said, and included the provinces of Anbar and Nineveh, which have large Sunni populations. The predicted low turnout in Anbar, a hotspot of Sunni resistance to the American occupation, was exceeded to such an extent that extra voting materials had to be rushed to outlying villages, where long lines were formed at polling stations, Mr. Ayar said.

Wow.

The major revelation of the day, it seems to me is something that could have been predicted. And that is the impact of the actual experience of voting, of getting your finger dyed, or sharing in a new and communal rite of democracy. Regardless of the results, that is in itself a success. Once people taste democracy, they will never forget it. That memory itself is an insurance against its future eclipse. Consciousness matters. And we have just seen a change in consciousness.

“I’M FAKING IT”: Kaus again goes after me for positing varying standards for future success in Iraq’s elections. Ten days ago, I said I predicted success and defined it, when pressed, as 80 percent turnout in most regions, enthusiasm among the voters, and better than expected turnout among Sunnis. My general point for the past couple of months has been it is foolish to under-estimate the power of elections. After absorbing some of the more sober analysis coming from the region, I revised those standards down, asking for input from readers, and openly displayed all this on my blog. I think I over-estimated the kind of violence that the insurgents might unleash and was being too Pollyannish about turnout in some areas so I came up with some final pre-election yard-sticks to hold myself to. All of this was an attempt to quantify a subjective thing like “success.” I was trying to avoid just post-hoc rationalization, so I couldn’t be accused of spinnning whatever result emerged. Now Kaus jumps all over this, for what reason I’m not sure. Some standards I lowered (turnout); others I raised (violence). It was all open, clear, and honest. And for this exercise in transparency, Kaus accuses me of “faking it.” Faking what, exactly? Expertise? Hardly. Clairvoyance? But I openly revised my criteria and posted alternative predictions and arguments! And when you write every day or more than once a day, such revisions are inevitable. So what’s my crime exactly? I have no idea. By the way, Mickey: an actual event happened in Iraq today. Not some pundit’s take on another pundit. You were against the war (I think). You now regret being against it? Or are those simple questions for other bloggers to wrestle with?

Well, by my own pre-election measuring stick, the security has been far better than feared. Too soon to measure turn-out accurately, but anecdotal signs are good. All excellent and encouraging news – not to get too excitable or anything. Here’s my Sunday Times column for the day.

The astonishing story of an American soldier, murdered while trying to foster democracy. Pulitzer material.

A FANTASTIC SUCCESS: The reduction of HIV in infants and mother-to-child transmission. Made possible by facing down the misguided notion that you shouldn’t test pregnant mothers, the extraordinary new drugs pioneered by the evil drug companies, and persistence. Remember that this precise methodology is what Mbeki was resisting in South Africa.

THE SILENCING OF GAY PRIESTS: The Church’s many gay priests are awaiting with some trepidation a Vatican document that might banish them from the priesthood for good. Meanwhile, they are told to remain silent, even if their lives are exemplary, their celibacy upheld, their vocations holy. Why this enforced silence? If the homosexual condition is not a sin, and if gay priests keep their vows, why can they not share their own gift of grace with the community at large? Commonweal magazine, along with the Jesuit magazine, America, has been a brave voice for these people – perhaps a quarter of all priests. The magazine continues that tradition with a beautiful reflection from a celibate gay priest. Money quote:

Bishops and religious superiors have forbidden many priests from speaking, writing, or preaching about their homosexuality. (This is the reason I am using a pseudonym for this article: I have been instructed not to speak publicly about my sexual identity.) Thus gay priests like myself are caught in a double bind. If we speak the truth and discuss freely our existence in the church, and, more important, our experience of leading fulfilling lives as celibate men, we will be censured or removed from ministry. If we remain silent, though, we guarantee that the positive example of the celibate gay priest will remain hidden. Voiceless, the gay priest cannot defend himself within the church. Stereotyped, he cannot escape the suspicions of society at large.

My prediction: one day the Church will formally apologize for the damage it has done to gay souls – especially those who have built the church, kept its faith, and been brutalized as a result. Not in my lifetime, perhaps. But one day.

“The core fact is not turnout. The US had 60% turnout during the 2004 election, but that alone isn’t enough. The real issue is the difference between the number of people who want to participate and the number who do. In the US, that percentage is almost immeasurably small. The provisional ballot controversies notwithstanding, the disenfranchised pool of voters in the US is tiny and actively managed downward.
Recent polling in Iraq indicates that upwards of 90% of Iraqis are interested in the election. Other polling indicates that only 60% or so will participate. If the polls are to be believed (which is a big if), fully one third of those who are interested will not participate.
This is a big deal. If you care about democracy in general and the example Iraq will set for the Middle East in particular, you should care about these numbers. One danger is that “democracy” becomes synonymous with “tyranny of the majority,” to paraphrase John Stuart Mills. Another is that those who wanted to vote, but did not, fail to “suspend disbelief” towards the winners.
The losers of elections provide legitimacy through their acquiescence to the results. If one third of the eligible and interested voters are not included in the outcome, the democratic process of losing elections is short circuited. Winners do not need persuasion that democracy works.
There was no realistic alternative to holding elections and holding them now. Still, tomorrow’s vote will lay the foundation for civil war in Iraq. If you care more about the domestic political consequences than the daily reality of Iraqis, you’re hopelessly narcissistic. If not, constructively drive the conservative debate regarding how to cope with the new reality.” More feedback on the Letters Page.

Jeff Jarvis has an excellent round-up of resources.

That’s one revelation from the New York Times today:

Mr. Chertoff’s division was asked on several occasions by the intelligence agency whether its officers risked prosecution by using particular techniques. The officials said the C.I.A. wanted as much legal protection as it could obtain while the Justice Department sought to avoid giving unconditional approval.
One technique that C.I.A. officers could use under certain circumstances without fear of prosecution was strapping a subject down and making him experience a feeling of drowning. Other practices that would not present legal problems were those that did not involve the infliction of pain, like tricking a subject into believing he was being questioned by a member of a security service from another country.

More interesting to me is a second Bybee memo that names specific interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration:

The officials said that when the agency asked about specific practices, Mr. Bybee responded with a second memorandum, which is still classified. They said it said many coercive practices were permissible if they met the narrow definition in the first memorandum. The officials said Mr. Chertoff was consulted on the second memorandum, but Ms. Healy of the White House said he had no role in it.

So here’s an obvious opening for the Senate. The public has a right to know which specific “interrogation techniques” its own government is using against detainees; and who approved what. The second memo must be released. But one thing we now know beyond a shadow of a doubt: the CIA did nothing without getting explicit legal sanction from its superiors. Anyone who thinks torture has gone on without such sanction has to grapple with the insistence from the CIA that they have cast-iron legal cover. (Since the 2002 memo has now been rescinded, they might end up in legal trouble anyway. You think their superiors will back them up?) We also know that the Bush administration believes that tying someone to a board and repeatedly submerging him in water so he thinks repeatedly that he is about to drown does not constitute illegal torture. Can some reporter specifically ask Bush whether he approves of his own government’s policy? It seems to me that neither Chertoff nor Gonzales should be approved until we know what was in this second memo. And I have a feeling I know why they haven’t released it – and will do all they can to prevent its contents being known.

Thanks for your emails. Here’s a poll of Americans’ expectations, which is not encouraging for the Bush administration. Here are some of your comments:

Why is there a need to “judge” the success of these elections in terms of quantifiable rates of turn out, or numbers of polling places, or Iraqis who have died in the polling line? In my opinion, these are simply numbers which some politician or some journalist will be able point to and to wait gleefully to say “Ah ha! Further proof of failure.” There will be NO measure of voter turn out that will satisfy those who wish to oppose the Administration. Look at Afghanistan.

But is there a measure of failure that supporters of the administration would take seriously? This struck me as a sane judgment:

It will signify success when more Iraqi’s can vote under less dangerous circumstances in their second election.

Then this piece of skepticism:

Andrew, the “success” of elections in Iraq will be whether the election matters at all. If two weeks from now there is a new “leader” who does not have the police power to back him, he will continue his residence in the highly fortified fortress of the green zone, with no practical control over the population, over laws, the courts etc…. These elections will not be successful… Your mind does not understand tribal culture, culture based on ethnicity and tribal loyalties. Neither does the mind of Bush or Cheney understand this.

On the other hand:

Turnout in U.S. offyear elections runs around 40%. If the element of well-grounded physical fear is thrown in, I’d say 40 % overall is an excellent result. I doubt very much that between fear and antipathy for the regime, three of ten Sunnis will turn out. Nor need they to play the political game: the rules give them a vote over the constitution the new assembly will draft. The real test is whether the newly elected regime will be legitimate. That in in turn reflects whether those who do turn out are roughly representative of those who don’t. By this standard, the regime will be embraced by the better-off Shi’a and the Kurds, but not by Sadr’s people or the Sunni. It adds up, I fear, to a regime that commands little more respect from the sectors of the population who support terrorism than does the present, US-installed, regime.

My revised criteria: 45 percent turnout for Kurds and Shia, 25 percent turnout for the Sunnis, under 200 murdered. No immediate call for U.S. withdrawal. Reasonable?

Just a piece of data on the latest “journalist” to be moonlighting for the federal government. No surprise: he’s a believer in the “ex-gay” movement. Worth a few dollars to keep that sinking balloon afloat.

GLENN’S DEFENSE: He argues that he only covers good news from Iraq because the mainstream media is doing all the rest. But doesn’t that prove my point? He’s deliberately covering only half the story. How that differs from putting fingers in his ears when bad news emerges, I don’t know. Maybe his point is that he is aware of the bad news but deliberately eschews any reference to it on the blog. My criticism of Belmont Club and Powerline is simply that they defend anything and everything done by the Bush administration. I may be wrong here, because I haven’t read their every word. So can anyone point me to a critique of the Bush administration in any way that has appeared on either blog? I’d be happy to be corrected. Even pro-war, pro-Bush writers must have some small criticism occasionally? Just asking … And is there any conservative blog out there that can criticize my work without some poster eventually imputing it to AIDS dementia?