“Elections are now a possibility,” said a senior U.S. official close to Iraq’s political transition. “We’re scrambling to find a solution.”

The revisions under consideration illustrate the challenge the administration faces as it attempts to craft a political blueprint for Iraq that satisfies the country’s diverse religious and ethnic groups while attempting to ensure U.S. influence over the new government and an end to the civil occupation before the presidential election next year.

Although the White House and the U.S.-led occupation authority in Baghdad are waiting for a clear statement from Sistani about what he wants, administration officials have concluded that their latest plan — crafted in part to answer his earlier objections — does not satisfy the grand ayatollah. Some officials said they are still hopeful he can be appeased with changes to a caucus system. If not, they said, the [Bush] administration may have no choice but to hold elections to retain the support of Iraq’s Shiite majority.

“We were surprised that Sistani did not bless the plan,” another senior administration official said. “We’re waiting to see what he says. If he says no to the caucuses, then we have to figure out a way to get elections done.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17507-2003Nov27?language=printer

Now, it hardly sounds from that that the invasion motive was to hold free and fair elections. Especially, if after six months it dawns on a “scrambling” U.S. government that they better organize an election, or face a Shiite uprising. I would not liked to have been the one who had to explain that Bush.

Now I take the view that Bush did this because he believed that democracy was the natural order of things and it would arrive on the scene if he could just wipe the slate clean.

Chris,

that is a big claim. I can’t evalulate your source for this statement, as you don’t provide one. I assume its just a hunch you have.

It sounds like you think Bush had some sort of religious moment where he just reckoned democracy is the natural order of things: bomb a few cities, kill off the leadership, and occupy the country with 150,000 troops and nearly as many private mercenaries (AKA “security people”), and blessed democracy will surely follow.

Good grief.

Yep. That is what I am saying. I am saying it because I like my history based on sources rather than unfalsifiable conspiratorial mumblings about what they are really up to.

And you end with this:

So this isn’t a refutation at all. Bush wanted Baghdad. He didn’t need it to get the oil, but he did if he wanted Saddam’s head and a democratic Iraq.

Chris,

There is nothing in your post in between these these two sentences to back up what you claim. Nowhere do you offer any proof that Bush was any more serious about democracy than he was about WMDs as the reason. All you offer is a bunch of unfalsifiable conspiratorial mumblings already spread countlessly by neocon shills about what they are really up to.

You claim that the underfunded WMD search program implies they weren’t serious about WMDs.

But when it comes to your theory that Bush really actually did it for democracy You offer nothing. For instance, there no verifiable full and open democratic election plans prior to the invasion from the U.S. government. No organized election monitoring plans set up prior to the invasion from the U.S. government. It was not the stated reason for the invasion. Bush did not offer not to invade if Saddam left and free and fair elections were held. No nothing. And you can’t provide any evidence of your theory because it wasn’t there. So where did you pick this kooky conspiracy theory up that Bush did it for democracy? Because he told you, maybe?

BTW, neoconservative Straussian philosophy does not support democracy like you say it does. Its an elitist philosophy that champions “perpetual deception between the rulers and the ruled” [Drury]. Sure, get ‘em out to vote. Democracy is great. But they better get it right, or else! Just ask the Palestinians.

It was Sistani that forced the democratic elections, as I posted and provided sources for, but for which you did not reply or counter. Because you can’t. Here it is again:

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/03/19/four-more-years/#comment-356162

If you can’t refute that, then the theory that it was all for democracy is a crock… like the WMD reason.

Which leaves us with what? Hmmmm

â??Are you really saying that Bush went to Iraq with wooly headed ideas of democracy?â??

Yep. That is what I am saying. I am saying it because I like my history based on sources rather than unfalsifiable conspiratorial mumblings about what they are really up to. At the time of the invasion of Iraq we have a great deal of talk from the Bush Administration about WMD. The problem with this is that those sources that detail what was happening inside the Administration (and I stress detail, they do not speculate, they come from people who were there) show that the neocons wanted to go after Saddam regardless. The Bush Administrations talk after the WMDs failed to turn up also goes nicely with these sources, as do the tenets of neoconservative ideology.

The Bush Administrations actions upon entering Iraq also ad weight to the case. We know the WMD hunt was initially poorly organized and under-resourced (see Woodward, State of Denial) and that through de-Baathification and demilitarization Bush totally demolished the old Iraqi state. Now I take the view that Bush did this because he believed that democracy was the natural order of things and it would arrive on the scene if he could just wipe the slate clean. Brendon thinks that Bush deliberately created a state of anarchy in Iraq to try and keep the Government dependent on the US, even though leaving the army in place and finding someone within willing to be a US client would be a much easier way to achieve both political control and economic control.

Apparently Bush aimed to:

â??Create an atmosphere of turbulence by your military presence. No reconstruction means no electricity, no water, no employment, and plenty of discontent. Create enemies like Zarqawi. Zarqawi comes in handy when you want to bomb places like Fallujah. Zarqawi is everywhere. Keep the population in a state of fear. Hold the government behind the Green Zone and get them to sign the papers that will be used for decades to wave about saying your pals own the oil.â??

Then I pointed out that to do this on purpose would be an act of domestic political suicide for Bush and his ideas. And what do you know, Brendon changed his tune!

Now â??Bush and his neocon pals did not forsee how bad this would end up. But they are in the bunker with nowhere else to go.â??

Well either they did it on purpose or they didnâ??t. You canâ??t have your cake and eat it to Brendon.

I also pointed out that there was a plan that would have allowed Bush to secure the oil without the trouble which you claim was, of course, engineered so that he could get his hands on the oil. The plan came from none other than Bushâ??s Undersecretary of Defense. So why couldnâ??t separating of the south work for a President after oil but not looking to prove any point in particular?

Well. â??Baghdad was where the political power was. In order to get control of the oil, he had to get political power. He has it.â??

No. Baghdad was where the Sunni dictatorship was. If Bush had of separated the oil rich south from the oil-free and troublesome Sunni triangle the political power would not have been in Baghdad. It wouldnâ??t have been anywhere and Bush could have put it in any damn place he chose.

So this isnâ??t a refutation at all. Bush wanted Baghdad. He didnâ??t need it to get the oil, but he did if he wanted Saddamâ??s head and a democratic Iraq.

Brendon, do you also believe the moon landings were faked?

Nah. Never.

Do you still believe in Mobile Weapon Labs?

Baghdad was where the political power was. In order to get control of the oil, he had to get political power. He has it.

The country is in a state of turbulence. Bush is demanding the Maliki government to sign over their oil resources to the oil companies. Why is this so hard for you to get?

Your argument is why would Bush do all this if he could foresee how messy it would be and that his Presidency would be in tatters.

Well, what was Bush’s plan according to you that was put into place but that he did not foresee the future? Don’t give me their rhetoric. Give me their money, troops, and policy that proves it.

Are you really saying that Bush went to Iraq with wooly headed ideas of democracy?

I’m sure Bush and his neocon pals did not forsee how bad this would end up. But they are in the bunker with nowhere else to go.

Everything I said before has today’s reality stamped all over it.

â??As for creating a state of turbulence to get what they want, why is that so far-fetched?â??

Its very, very simple. The state of turbulence has undermined Bushâ??s domestic support and the domestic support of his party. To believe this shaggy dog story of yours one would have to believe that Bush decided in 2002 that he wanted to be a failed President, and indeed be in the running for worst President ever. If you think he made that decision you are beyond deluded.

Now in 1998 Paul Wolfowitz proposed to congress that the US create a state or a protected zone along the lines of the Kurdish one in the north in the Shiite dominated south of Iraq. This also happens to be where all the oil is. Bush could have done this in 2002 and been home and hosed long ago and got his hands on TEH OIL as part of the bargain. He didnâ??t. Instead he went into Baghdad and Anbar, which are the areas now causing him problems. Now if he really just wanted TEH OIL why did he do that?

I find it interesting that you don’t acknowledge that it wasn’t really about WMDs, and you don’t argue that events immediately after the invasion (as I outlined) state Bush was not really interested in creating an independent sovereign democratic state in Iraq.

If you cancel out those two possible motives, whats left.

But you find the idea of the invasion boiling down to grubby motives too much.

As for creating a state of turbulence to get what they want, why is that so far-fetched? At this point in time when Iraq is in a state of civil war, Bush is demanding a weakened, vulnerable Iraqi government sign on the dotted line and hand over the vast majority of their resources to the oil comnpanies.

It seems I have reality on my side when putting that case.

Where is your sovereign democratic Iraqi government that would prove yours? The country is still under American occupation.

Bush has deliberatley maintained the state of disaster in Iraq which has ruined and discredited both his Presidency and the ideas associated with it so that, what, some oil companies can make few bob?

Wow. The things that we discover when we postulate an economic explanation for everything.