Freedom's Truth

The Story: Saddam's nephew, a key financier for insurgents, is arrested :

Iraqi police on Wednesday arrested Saddam Hussein's nephew in Baghdad, charging that he served as the top financier of Iraq's rampant insurgency, senior Iraqi security officials said. Yasir Sabhawi Ibrahim, son of Saddam's half brother Sabhawi Ibrahim Hasan al-Tikriti, was arrested in a Baghdad apartment, several days after Syrian authorities forced him to return to Iraq...

The Backstory:

This is the biggest insurgent leader catch yet:

The Iraqi officials believe the suspect was operating Baath Party funds in Syria, Jordan and Yemen and had been running a vast network of insurgents inside Iraq. They also claim he was coordinating between Baathist insurgents and the terror network of Jordanian-born militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He was believed to be second in command of the Iraqi-led insurgency behind Younis al-Ahmad, a former member of the Baath Party leadership believed to be still in Syria.

He's been wanted for some time. The U.S. Government designated him a financier of insurgents earlier this year:

Yasir, who allegedly acted as a financier and bodyguard for Saddam Hussein prior to Saddam's capture by U.S. forces, provided financial support, weapons and explosives to anti-Coalition elements. Notably, after Operation Iraqi Freedom, Yasir transferred funds to regime loyalists, including a large sum of money to Saddam's wife, Sajida Khayrallah Tilfah, on Saddam's behalf.

he's been a coalition target for some time, but was hiding out in Syria. And yet only now he even shows up in Iraq. ... Why? We are clued in by this tidbit:

Both officials said Syrian authorities "pushed" Ibrahim into Iraq but did not hand him over to authorities. The Syrians were aware of his whereabouts in Baghdad and informed U.S. authorities, who then passed the information to Iraq security forces who carried out a "fast, easy" raid on the fugitive's apartment, the Defense Ministry official said.

A reasonable speculation is that Condi Rice's latest saber-rattling has rattled the Damascus cages enough to make them throw us some bones. America is offering a 'Gaddafi deal' to bring Syria in from the cold. The Bush administration has four demands, relating to Lebanon, support for Palestinian terrorists and this - "Washington also wants Syria to halt the recruiting, funding and training of volunteers for the Iraqi insurgency, which they claim are openly operating in Syria with the connivance of the regime. They include former members of the Iraqi regime and foreign volunteers responsible for suicide car-bomb attacks."

As Bashar contemplates the current fate of Saddam, and sees the implacable progress of democracy in Iraq against a faltering insurgency (oh, that the media would admit that!), maybe, just maybe, he's thinking he's better cutting loose his foreign adventures to keep his power at home.

Via Weekly Standard, Secty of State Rice on our plans in Iraq to defeat the terrorists: "We are moving from a stage of transition toward the strategy to prepare a permanent Iraqi government for a decisive victory." She mentions building of the Iraqi army and police forces, eliminating sanctuaries (e.g. like our recent efforts in Tal Afar and al-Qaim) and setting up permanent national institutions in Iraq for governance, and notes the progress on all fronts.

From the milblog "365 and a wakeup", American Soldiers help protect the election in Iraq:

That was how we spent our morning, watching a steady stream of Iraqis wave as they walked to the polling center, and then smile and hold up their ink stained thumbs as they returned. The entire area swimmed with motion as Iraqis came from kilometers away to cast their vote. As the sun reached its burning apex one of the Iraqi soldiers ran over with a grave look on his face. He spilled a torrent of words, urgently motioning for me to follow him. I took a small detachment to the outer perimeter, a wall of concrete barriers a couple hundred meters from the polling site and was met with an anxious group of Iraqi soldiers. As I walked over there I expected I would have to listen to pleas for additional ice, or some other creature comfort. What they had to say took me by surprise, and I felt embarrassed at my callous guessing game. The reason they had called me over was to express concerns that one of the election officials was trying to sway the voters in the polling center. As they laid out their case their eyes burned with passion and their voices trembled with emotion. It was only then, seeing these soldiers aflame with a desire to have a free and fair election, that I truly understood how committed these men were to their fledgling democracy. I had one of the Iraqi policeman collect up the election supervisor and the poll worker in question and as they arrived the soldiers let loose a heated verbal salvo. I motioned for them to stop for a moment, and as they lapsed into silence I explained to the supervisor how critical it was to remain impartial. The poll worker lowered his head in an obvious expression of shame, and the supervisor promised to keep a close eye on his staff. They walked back to the election building, and the soldiers seemed convinced that my impromptu civics lesson would cow the passionate poll worker into a semblance of impartiality.

As the afternoon heat flared I started seeing groups walk away with the water bottles we had left with the soldiers, and I walked over to the perimeter to see if everything was alright. They told me that they had plenty of water, and that they wanted to share it with the people who were walking great distances in order to vote. All of these soldiers were Shia, and all of the voters were Sunni, but that didn’t matter to them. For on this day sectarian concerns faded away like the morning mist, and all the Iraqi soldiers could see was Iraqi citizens in need of a cool drink. For the second time in the day I was impressed and slightly humbled by these soldiers I had been so concerned with the prior evening.

The afternoon was no different from the morning, and voters continued to make their way to the polling site in spite of the oppressive heat. In our small position soldiers took turns on the heavy weapons scanning for threat that never materialized. And then it was over. The election officials packed the ballots into their small sedan and piled into it like it was a circus clown car. As they left the site we pulled out of our overwatch positions and reassembled on the election site. As I stepped out of my HMMWV I noticed an Iraqi soldier carefully cutting down the election banner. I snapped a picture of him holding up the banner and then watched him carefully folded the banner. Once he had done so he walked over and placed it in my hands saying “take, take – thank you for you protecting Iraq democracy”. His tongue stuttered on some of the unfamiliar consonants, but his message carried so much weight I almost staggered backwards. His words washed away all the miseries we had suffered over the last few days, replacing it with a deep sense of pride at what my men had helped accomplish.

As we waited for the armored vehicles to pick up the Iraqi soldiers the atmosphere burned with the a sense of joy that is hard to express in words. American soldiers wrapped their arms around Iraqi soldiers and mugged for pictures. Iraqi soldiers let their American counterparts take pictures holding their AK-47s. One of the younger soldiers danced an clumsy jig in the empty street, flanked by Iraqi soldiers dancing to a tune only they could hear. Even the hardest of our NCOs had to crack a smile at this strange pageant.

Election workers, poll workers, and even voters risked death in this election. (In Ramadi, it was reported that some Sunni voters were killed by Al Qaeda after voting "NO". This contributed to low turnout in Ramadi.) The real evidence is of an honest election of a Constitution widely supported by Kurdish and Shiites, and a small number of Sunnis. To tarnish this brave effort with unfounded allegations of vote fraud is deeply troubling.

... so much so that the election commission is "investigating "unusually high" vote totals" of over 90% in some provinces, and and the NYTimes plays it up as "possibility that the results of the referendum could be called into question". Actually, no; there is no evidence at all to call the election into question. None:

"The statement made no mention of the possibility of fraud, but said results were being re-examined to comply with internationally accepted standards. Election officials say that under those standards, voting procedures should be re-examined anytime a candidate or a ballot question got more than 90 percent of the vote."

If merely crossing the 90% level of support is a cause for suspicion, then you would find many Congressmen and many inner-city precincts are in the 'suspicious' category. So the numbers are not the issue, the issue is simply is there any potential of invalid votes.

These allegations of voting fraud are not based on evidence but the knee-jerk whining from the same Iraqi Sunni front groups that have given implicit support to terrorists while undermining the US and Iraqi Government. They should be given the same credence as other anti-democratic forces would get in our country if they decried a "phony election" without evidence.

Consider the lack of motive: The measure had support that was strong enough that there was no doubt it would command a majority. (This is possibly why turnout was moderate in some Shiite-dominated provinces, the people there knew their vote wasn't critical. In provinces where there was a chance the measure would fail by getting 2/3rds rejected, there was a strong turnout.) It was pointless to rack up large majorities there.

There is no attempt to share the actual positive results here, just sow confusion through partial and distorted reporting. Another example of a media that slights good news in favor of negative bias.

UPDATE: Comments on the early vote totals -

(Asharq al-Awsat) The preliminary results announced by the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq on October 17 were not the final results for the October 15 referendum. The final results are still up in the air and will be decided by the votes in Ninewa, the northern Iraqi province with a majority of Sunni population. One of the Kurdish members of the national assembly, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the constitution was approved by the majority of people there because the Iraqi Islamic Party enjoys a wide support in that province. The Iraqi Islamic party endorsed the proposed constitution two days before the referendum. The preliminary figures the electoral commission gave on October 17 suggested that six provinces in southern Iraq voted in favour of the document, and that the Kurdish provinces in north also approved the draft. Two Sunni provinces, Salahaddin and Anbar, were said to have voted against the document.

Azzaman) Voter turnout in Najaf ranged between 33 per cent and 66 per cent, according to sources in the city. But the electoral commission refused to give any numbers about the primary results on the referendum in Najaf. According to Azzaman's reporter in the city, turnout was low at the 248 voting centres in the province the morning of the vote. But Ammar Hakim, a top official of the Supreme Council for Islamic revolution, said turnout among Iraqi voters was high across the country, particularly among voters in the western provinces.

Allawi, Other Centrists Announce Coalition: "This conference is a major attempt to create a political bloc able to bring unity to this country and intent on saving the people from sectarian strife," said Mahdi al-Hafidh, a former planning minister.

It was said by Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of Government, except for all the rest." Politics sometimes has a bad name, but one might well say: Politics is the worst way for societies to arrange their affairs, except for all the rest. Iraq's "Yes" vote for the new Constitution was a victory for the kind of democratic politics that eluded Arab countries for many decades. This was a triumph of politics over violent power-mongering in the best sense of the term. A score of Democracy 1, Terrorism 0.

In this process, we saw first the elections in January giving new powers to the long-suppressed Shi'ite community in Iraq; we saw them baited by a campaign of sectarian violence throughout the Spring and Summer, bait they did not respond to with violence but with restrait; we saw that new Government stumble, take a long time to form, and then try to grapple with the consequence of low Sunni turnout in an Assembly dominated by the Kurds and Shiites who longed for democratic rule.

The National Assembly reached out, not once, but at several points in the process to accommodate the Sunnis: first in accepting Sunni participation in drafting the constitution, giving them 15 seats on the committee; alas, two were assassinated by terrorists in a drive to stymie the process; then in August further political negotiations were made and moves were made in accepting amendments; finally, at the last minute, some changes were made to make the package more palatable to Sunnis, by tempering some of the provisions and allowing amendments sooner. It has been this process itself which has shown, even through the negotiations and the stumbles, how mature the Iraqi civil society is. In the statements of al-Sistani, the Shiite cleric, comes through an understanding as well, that the clerics need to be supportive of this trend as the only real path for Iraqi civil society, and need to stay in the background to preserve both the Government's independence from the clerics and the clerics independence from political partisans.

Each stumble and setback is just a part of the give-and-take of any political system, and yet it was misread by the critics of the American and coalition effort as a sign of flawed strategies and a 'quagmire' along the way. What a tragic mistake. If democracy has been compared to riding a bicycle, then how can you learn without falling off once or twice?

It would not have been fatal or even a bad thing long-term if the Constitution was voted down; either yea or nay would have shown the power of democratic elections to determine Iraq's fate. Yet it is crucial to point out that Iraq did not stumble, it managed to work out its differences well enough to stay within a very challenging timeframe for a Constitution.

By the actions of Iraq's political leaders, its clerical leaders and its people, the Iraqis have shown themselves not only desirous of freedom and democracy, but also, through the individual and collective acts of heroism and restraint, politics and persuasion, deserving of the best form of Government.

And so they shall. God willing, this a democratic Constitutional Republic that Iraq will keep.

Security Tower has trends on Iraqi forces.

Walid Phares calls the October 15 Referendum Iraqi Victory, American Achievement.

The MSM voices are discounting this huge political milestone, as evidenced by Washington Post op-ed. Apparently a Constitution that "few could read" (how many voters in Europe read the EU Constitution?):

planned as a landmark in Iraq's postwar reconstruction -- and still described that way by the Bush administration -- the referendum has been stripped of much of its substance. In the troubled Iraqi context, that amounts to good news.

This is a foolish comment as it reflects the unrealistic view that at the start-point of the New Iraq's politics, all decisions must be agreed by all. Yet that is precisely the difficulty of such boot-strapping operations like Constitution-writing. This meaning of the referendum is that the legal basis for Iraqi Governance and its underlying legitimacy is secure. What the Post doesn't admit is that most of the Constitution is in agreement by most Iraqis:

"Though it's not the fundamental accord that the country needs, it provides more time for one, as well as the strongest signal yet that Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders are capable of compromising with each other."

The 'fundamental accord' is there to be accepted by any Iraqis of good will. The MSM, desperate to see the downside here, continues to tap the resentment of the very baathist remnants that are the cause of Iraq's misery for 30 years under Saddam, and the further cause of misery under two years of insurgent and terrorist violence.

The New York Times also takes up the Fallujah-Baathist view of the Constitution:

We won't know for sure until all of Saturday's votes are counted whether the seriously flawed constitution offered by Iraq's Shiite religious and Kurdish nationalist parties was accepted as a starting point for necessary amendments. Early signs pointed in that direction. Sunni Arabs, the group most skeptical of the new charter, seem to have turned out in far greater numbers than in January's parliamentary elections. But according to initial reports, significant numbers of them voted yes.

What is the Constitution's serious flaws? That it doesn't cure all political ills of Iraq? That it doesnt accomodate Sunni complaints enough? There is a foolish unreality to the criticism here. What was won in Iraq was a constitutional democratic Republic. It's up to Iraqis to define how its ruled now.

Hat-tip to FR. Transport present-day MSM to WWII and you'd get an Iwo Jima flag-raising flap. You'd also get: "PEARL HARBOR BOMBED Why Do They Hate Us?"

LGF has an Iraqi sending email on the vote: "This Vote Was a Great Blow to the Terrorists. This was a great step towards a solid democracy in Iraq."

Iraq the Model links to a video of celebration over the voting.

Arab commentators don't know what to think of it.

Victor Davis Hanson cuts through more defeatist negative bunk.

MSM fawns over the baathist holdouts deciding to vote: "Saturday was a day of anger and desperation, regret and occasionally hope in Adhamiyah, a quarter of Baghdad whose very name has become synonymous with Sunni Muslim orthodoxy." It's also a neighborhood that is beholden to terrorists and insurgents, and hates the new Government because many of them were the core of Saddam's old Government. As the article iteself notes: "It was near there that Hussein made his last public appearance, atop a car in the waning days of the U.S. invasion in April 2003."

Why did the MSM go into such neighborhoods to report on the referendum? If they went to show Iraqis cynical about the Constitution, they have inadvertly stepped into the bigger and more real story here: The Sunni "holdouts" have grudgingly decided to enter into the political process. This is not about liking the occupation or even liking the Iraqi Government, but about entering into politics and letting go of fantasies of resistance or seeing the occupation leave on the terms of the Baathists. One key quote says it all:

"We wish that Saddam would return. Really, we wish," said Shaker Mahmoud, 47, waiting in a line of voters in the girls school's courtyard. His anger seemed to grow with each phrase. "If he did, we'd slaughter sheep and camels for him."

His friends looked down, perhaps a little embarrassed, and he turned more reflective.

"It's not an issue of Saddam," the stocky, unshaven Mahmoud said a few moments later, his words slowing. "Saddam is gone. It's a national issue. As Iraqis, as people of Adhamiyah, we are united, we have one word, one voice. As Iraqi people, we can't recognize this document. There are so many mistakes in the constitution. There are paragraphs in it that will destroy Iraq."

This Saddam-supporter, this holdout, is coming to grips with what is reasonable in the new environment. It isn't Saddam; it isn't Baathism; it isn't Sunni domination. He grasps at an attempt to hold onto the mantle of Iraqi unity. This document that he claims will destroy Iraq (read: Give more power to Kurds and Shiites, and decentralize power), is supported by two-thirds of voting Iraqis precisely because it moves away from the injust setup this man wants to go back to. Isn't that unity? As a Kurd put it: "Anyone who says 'No' is not an Iraqi and not a Kurd. There's no 'No' here in Kurdistan."

The The Washtington Post described a different scene in Najaf:

Abdul Hussein Ahmed, 63, emerged from a polling station in the southern city of Najaf with his purple ink-stained finger aloft. "Five members of my family were killed by Saddam and his people," he declared. "But now, with this constitution, everyone is equal under the law."

Here's an Iraqi that gets it. By next year, when Saddam is convicted, when Iraq's Army is 250,000 men strong, when the new Iraqi Government is in place, 'equal under the law' will be not just a hope, but Iraq's new reality.

Al Qaeda propaganda cell leader captured during a raid last month. Abu Dijana was the senior Al Qaeda in Iraq propaganda cell leader for Karabilah, Al Qaim and Husaybah: "Abu Dijana’s cell consisted of photographers who used video and still photograph images to document insurgent attacks against Iraqi citizens and Iraqi and Coalition security forces."

Operations in western Al-Anbar continue ... Karabilah terrorist safe house raided on Oct 16th.

When two British soldiers were arrested by Basra police last month after getting in a firefight that left an Iraqi policeman dead; then rescued in an incident that sparked rioting and was ready to send relations between Iraqi police and coalition troops into a tailspin ... the immeidate question was: Why were Britsh soldiers dressed as Arabs in the first place? Here's why:

London, Oct 16. (PTI): Two British soldiers detained by Iraq security forces last month had been spying on a senior police official who was allegedly abusing prisoners, a media report said here today.

Britain's Special Air Service (SAS) had been staking out several members of the Iraqi police, who were suspected of torturing prisoners at the Jamiyat prison in Basra, The Sunday Telegraph said.

The operation was ordered after the body of an Iraqi, who had been arrested by the police, was found on the outskirts of the city in April.

An examination of the corpse showed that his skull, hands and legs had been penetrated with an electric drill, the newspaper said. The army learnt, from Iraqi sources, that a senior police officer was behind the abuse.

Quoting military sources, the weekly said hundreds of people arrested by the local police might have been tortured at the prison.

The duo was captured by the Iraqi forces and lodged in a prison in Basra but then dramatically released by the British army who bulldozed through the jail.

"We believe victims were strapped into a chair and then the torture would begin. We think it was more to do with inter-tribal warfare than clamping down on terrorist activity. This is a very corrupt society," a senior army source told the newspaper expressing suspicions of torture.

This was the same Basra police corruption that Steven Vincent was uncovering, and that led to his death in early August.

Chris Wallace of Fox News calls Media Bias 'Astonishing'. I am no longer astonished when our paper, the day after Iraq's historic vote, decided to inform us about a four month-old GAO report using the headline: "Four years after invasion, Afghanistan still suffering"; it assures us that despite billions in U.S. aid, Afghanistan somehow manages to remain a third-world country. (And if I go back to the day after Afghanistan's vote last month, I'd be sure to find an article about some Iraqi schools that are falling apart.)

Every day the media plays the 'glass half full' game, a media version of 3-card-monty to feed us bad news to distract us from the good news. I am no longer astonished at a media that can take a historic step forward and turn out news articles that highlight the opposition to a Constitution that got massive and overwhelming support. Here's the lead:

Iraq's constitution seemed assured of passage Sunday despite strong opposition from Sunni Arabs, who turned out in surprisingly high numbers in an effort to stop it."

What is immediately sriking is the (false) assumption that Sunnis were unanimously opposed. No mention is made of Shia and Kurd levels of support. No mention of the other 15 out of 18 provinces in Iraq and how they did. This is almost like writing an article like: "Nov 7, 1984: Ronald Reagan seems assured of re-election, despite strong opposition from liberal voters in Minnesota."

The key is at the provincial level. Yet they bury the real news, which is that even in Sunni-dominated provinces, the vote so far is surprisingly strong in favor of the Constitution. The last minute-deal with Sunni political parties may have done enough to widen the agreement with the Constitution:

Opponents needed to get a two-thirds "no" vote in three of those provinces. They may have reached the threshold in Anbar and Salahuddin, but Diyala and Ninevah provinces appeared to have supported the document by a wide margin.

The latter three have Sunni majorities but also powerful Shiite and Kurdish communities, which made them focal points for the political battle over the referendum.

In Diyala, 70 percent supported the referendum, 20 percent opposed it and 10 percent of ballots were rejected as irregular, said Adil Abdel-Latif, the head of the election commission in Diyala. The result came from a first count of the approximately 400,000 votes cast.

At least one more count was being conducted to confirm the votes, which would then be sent to Baghdad, where results from all the provinces are being collected for final confirmation.

According to a vote count from 260 of Ninevah's 300 polling stations, about 300,000 people supported the constitution and 80,000 opposed it, said Samira Mohammed, spokeswoman for the election commission in the province's capital, Mosul.

This is a massive level of support in Nivevah, over 75% support. And that is likely to be surpassed:

In Karbala, a Shiite province just south of Baghdad, some 440,000 people voted — a 60 percent turnout — and 95 percent of them cast "yes," ballots, according to the head of the province's election commission office, Safaa al-Mousawi.

A better headline for the day after the historic vote would be: Early returns show massive Iraqi support for Iraq's new Constitution. But then that would have cut into the news writers using the news as a platform for sharing the complaints of the American-hating Baathist-loving residents of certain Baghdad neighborhoods.

BBC reported ... Some danced in the streets of Baghdad, chanting: "Our constitution has been approved, down with the Baathists!" referring to Saddam Hussein's former ruling party.

Yet the cited article closes with ...

"My mother insisted to go because she considered that as a religious duty, but not me. She said she cannot disobey al-Sistani. Why should I care? Nothing has changed since we have elected this government: no security, no electricity, no water," said Saad Ibrahim, a Shiite resident of Baghdad's Karrada district.

"The constitution will not change that. The main issue is not getting this constitution passed, but how to stop terrorism ... Now they had this referendum done, we should expect terrorism back to our streets tomorrow."

This is the undercurrent from much of the media. It doesn't really change anything.

No it doesn't change anything - it changes EVERYTHING.

BBC has 8 pictures from the day of voting.

Caption: Iraqis are voting in a referendum on a new constitution. This little girl's flag urges people to "vote for Iraq" as she arrives with her father at a Baghdad polling station.

Al-Iraqi has a thread of dozens of pictures of Iraqis voting. A sample:

Caption: An Iraqi soldier makes a victory sign while casting his ballot for the constitutional referendum at a polling station in the southern Iraq city of Basra October 15, 2005.

Caption: An Iraqi raises his inked finger after voting in the constitutional referendum in the Sunni-dominated town of Falluja, about 50 km (30 miles) west of Baghdad, October 15, 2005.

An Iraqi woman raises her inked finger after voting in the constitutional referendum in Baghdad October 15, 2005.

An Iraqi man raises his inked finger after casting his vote in the constitutional referendum at a polling station in Baghdad October 15, 2005.

The polls have closed on Iraq's historic step forward, and the counting begins. Chester's live-blogging linked to Iraq election wire which has a lot of reporting on the election. It has this comment on security:

To add an update, the place I work is atop a hill which overlooks most of the city of Baghdad. On a normal day we hear numerous explosions, both large and small, as well as plenty of small arms fire. I think it is a testament to the ability of the new Iraqi forces to report that as of 5:00 pm today, I have heard zero explosions or weapons fire today.

AlIraqi forum post on Security:

More than 100,000 Iraqi police and soldiers will protect the more than 6000 polling stations over the day, with US and other foreign troops on standby. But the tight security was not enough to stop a roadside bomb from exploding on al-Madhif street in al-Amiriya area, targeting an Iraqi police patrol stationed near a polling centre. Two police officers were seriously injured and a police vehicle was damaged, Khalid told Aljazeera.

Overall the reports of violence are less than in the January election. Furthermore, the Iraqi forces are doing most of the security work, and U.S. forces are in the background only.

Turnout:

Iraq the Model reports on turnout on a province-by-province basis as reported by Iraqi electoral commission. Around 15.5 million of Iraq's 24 million population are registered to vote. With turnout rating of high being more than 66%, 9 provinces have high turnout, 7 provinces have medium turnout, and 1 has low turnout. Al-Anbar turnout is as-yet unknown. Overall, turnout seems to have well exceeded the 8 million who voted in January. Reports indicate that overall turnout is over 60%, or around 9 million voters. (In January , 8 million Iraqis voted.)

BBC has the following report: "Sunni areas of Baghdad and a number of cities including Falluja, Baquba and Mosul in the north all saw high turnouts. But the electoral commission said more than one third of the polling stations had not opened in several cities in Anbar where US-led forces have been fighting the insurgency. A commission spokesman, Saadallah al Rawi, said turnout was low in five of the province's cities, particularly Ramadi, where there was continued violence."

It's now the morning of October 15th in Baghdad, the start of an historic day ... The vote begins

The Adventures of Chester is liveblogging the Iraqi referendum vote.

Chester links to a report on Media bias in the reporting on Iraq ...

"Network coverage has been overwhelmingly pessimistic. More than half of all stories (848, or 61%) focused on negative topics or presented a pessimistic analysis of the situation, four times as many as featured U.S. or Iraqi achievements or offered an optimistic assessment (just 211 stories, or 15%)."

Case in point: Bush has a town-hall event with soldiers; the MSM reported the town-hall event as a 'staged' event; then A soldier who participated responds to this smear.

This historic vote is being quite underplayed in the MSM. The only way to end media bias on the war will be to win it once and for all ... then we can leave the distortions to the historians.

Iraqis go to the polls today, in an historic vote that will change the face of not just Iraq, but the middle east.

The last-minute compromise to the Sunnis, akin to similar compromises made to pass the U.S. Consitution in 1787, may well be the deal-sealer that makes the Constitution the consensus-building instrument it needs to be to build the democratic center in Iraq. It made the Constitution easier to amend, and softened the provisions relating to former Baathists. Ambassador Khalilzad characterized it this way:

"What has happened here in Iraq is a set of assurances, a bill of assurances, if you like, was passed the other night by the assembly, which has assisted in gaining Sunni support and was a major step forward in broadening support for the draft," Khalilzad said.

"It's very important that this agreement was made and that the Sunnis now, significant Sunni forces, are in support of the constitution," he added.

With these provision, it is expected to pass much more easily.

In other last-minute news, the terrorists struck power lines and cut power to Baghdad. The cowards also did this:

On Friday, militants blew up the home of the local head of the Iraqi Islamic Party in the insurgent bastion of Ramadi and bombed an empty office of the party in Baghdad, after the Sunni Arab group broke ranks this week and urged a "Yes" vote.

Enough has been written about Harriet Miers, pro and con, that I don't need to add much. I'm one of the 'disappointed conservatives' who was hoping for a proven conservative Judge. We got a 'trust me' instead. And after the stellar Roberts, Miers lack of a track record looks less like a brilliant 'stealth' move and more like pushing a second-string choice. Not that she's not qualified, but the lack of judicial background yields too few clues to be certain of her future performance at many levels.

Conservatives are picking apart the pro-Miers claims so much so that even "Confirm Them" should be renamed "confirm someone else".

The Roberts nomination split the Democrats, The Miers nomination split the Republicans ... which was the better nomination?

Miers defeat will be bad for conservatives and would fracture the Bush White House relationship with his own base, and another O'Connor or Souter would be bad for conservatives and do damage to George Bush's legacy, as Souter did to his father. The only way for conservatives to "win" is for Miers to get confirmed, and beat the odds and actually vote like Clarence Thomas. I see this hopeful outcome unlikely.

Who's to blame for this folly? The Wild Card was the chief of staff.

President Bush's Terrorism Speech, October 6, 2005. This was a major speech intended for the September 11th anniversary that was delayed due to hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Michael Barone has some analysis on it. Barone notices that Bush, like Blair before him, is going beyond the faceless term 'terrorism' to describe the ideological nexus behind the terror threat:

First, he identified the source of the terrorism we are fighting against. "Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant jihadism; still others, Islamofascism." ... To the best of my memory, Bush previously has not been willing to describe what we are fighting against as "Islamic" radicalism, presumably out of fear of angering Muslims or of providing fodder for claiming that we are fighting a war against Islam. ...

Second, Bush provided a narrative framework for what is going on in Iraq. ...

The third interesting new thing in this speech was Bush's description of what could happen if we fail in Iraq:

"Some observers also claim that America would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now. This is a dangerous illusion, refuted with a simple question: Would the United States and other free nations be more safe, or less safe, with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people, and its resources?"

I am struck by the sublime indifference of most critics of Bush's Iraq policy to the fate of the Iraqi people. They are totally unexultant about the overthrow of a vicious dictatorship and seem to have no interest at all in what would happen to Iraqis if we leave suddenly.

One statement in Bush's speech that got noticed was this:

Together, we've killed or captured nearly all of those directly responsible for the September the 11th attacks; as well as some of bin Laden's most senior deputies; al Qaeda managers and operatives in more than 24 countries; the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing, who was chief of al Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf; the mastermind of the Jakarta and the first Bali bombings; a senior Zarqawi terrorist planner, who was planning attacks in Turkey; and many of al Qaeda's senior leaders in Saudi Arabia.

Overall, the United States and our partners have disrupted at least ten serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September the 11th, including three al Qaeda plots to attack inside the United States. We've stopped at least five more al Qaeda efforts to case targets in the United States, or infiltrate operatives into our country. Because of this steady progress, the enemy is wounded -- but the enemy is still capable of global operations. Our commitment is clear: We will not relent until the organized international terror networks are exposed and broken, and their leaders held to account for their acts of murder.

It's not remarkable to me that the U.S. Government has disrupted attempted bombing plots, even in the U.S. What is remarkable to me is the reaction that this is something to be doubted or, even worse, something to be treated as a mere politically motivated statement. The Democrats prove once again that they 'dont get it' in questioning this.

The section of Bush's speech that discusses Iraq is summarized here:

Our goal is to defeat the terrorists and their allies at the heart of their power -- and so we will defeat the enemy in Iraq.

Our coalition, along with our Iraqi allies, is moving forward with a comprehensive, specific military plan. Area by area, city by city, we're conducting offensive operations to clear out enemy forces, and leaving behind Iraqi units to prevent the enemy from returning. Within these areas, we're working for tangible improvements in the lives of Iraqi citizens. And we're aiding the rise of an elected government that unites the Iraqi people against extremism and violence. This work involves great risk for Iraqis, and for Americans and coalition forces. Wars are not won without sacrifice -- and this war will require more sacrifice, more time, and more resolve.

The terrorists are as brutal an enemy as we've ever faced. They're unconstrained by any notion of our common humanity, or by the rules of warfare. No one should underestimate the difficulties ahead, nor should they overlook the advantages we bring to this fight.

Some observers look at the job ahead and adopt a self-defeating pessimism. It is not justified. With every random bombing and with every funeral of a child, it becomes more clear that the extremists are not patriots, or resistance fighters -- they are murderers at war with the Iraqi people, themselves.

In contrast, the elected leaders of Iraq are proving to be strong and steadfast. By any standard or precedent of history, Iraq has made incredible political progress -- from tyranny, to liberation, to national elections, to the writing of a constitution, in the space of two-and-a-half years. With our help, the Iraqi military is gaining new capabilities and new confidence with every passing month. At the time of our Fallujah operations 11 months ago, there were only a few Iraqi army battalions in combat. Today there are more than 80 Iraqi army battalions fighting the insurgency alongside our forces. Progress isn't easy, but it is steady. And no fair-minded person should ignore, deny, or dismiss the achievements of the Iraqi people.

Some observers question the durability of democracy in Iraq. They underestimate the power and appeal of freedom. We've heard it suggested that Iraq's democracy must be on shaky ground because Iraqis are arguing with each other. But that's the essence of democracy: making your case, debating with those who you disagree -- who disagree, building consensus by persuasion, and answering to the will of the people. We've heard it said that the Shia, Sunnis and Kurds of Iraq are too divided to form a lasting democracy. In fact, democratic federalism is the best hope for unifying a diverse population, because a federal constitutional system respects the rights and religious traditions of all citizens, while giving all minorities, including the Sunnis, a stake and a voice in the future of their country. It is true that the seeds of freedom have only recently been planted in Iraq -- but democracy, when it grows, is not a fragile flower; it is a healthy, sturdy tree. (Applause.)

As Americans, we believe that people everywhere -- everywhere -- prefer freedom to slavery, and that liberty, once chosen, improves the lives of all. And so we're confident, as our coalition and the Iraqi people each do their part, Iraqi democracy will succeed.

Via FR, here is a speech by Entifadh K. Qanbar (Iraq's Deputy Military Attache at the Embassy in Washington) given October 5th to the AEI: Defending Iraq. A good speech from the Iraqi Government persepctive, it addresses Iraq's security challenge and response:

The biggest danger to Iraqi citizens and the Iraqi government is terrorism. Thus, the main task of the Iraqi army is not to fight wars with foreign countries, but to fight terrorism. To defeat terrorism in Iraq, we need to establish a military force based on a doctrine that recognizes the nature of the enemy and what is required to defeat him. We need to be prepared for a long term war. Therefore, our necessary starting point is to understand the roots of terrorism in Iraq and the terrorists’ methods and means and how to defeat them.

Who is the enemy:

Terrorism is funded, strategically planned, and operationally directed by Baathist organizations in Iraq. They are elements of the former regime, especially the Military Bureau of the Baath Party, the Mukhabarat, the Amn al Khass, Fedayeen Saddam and so on.

It has become clear to us that Baathists through their campaign of terror in Sunni areas are attempting to hijack the representation of the Sunnis. It is a big mistake to equate Sunnis with Baathists. Baathists are not equal to Sunnis and Sunnis are not equal to Baathists. If we don’t make that distinction, we will fall into the trap of exactly what the Baathists want.

... It is also important to note that not all Baathists are working with terrorists or are terrorists. Some Baathists have accepted the new realities. But terrorism in Iraq, I repeat, is led by a Baathist organization of those who do not want to accept power sharing and who still believe that they can stop the democratic process and monopolize power over Iraq. Islamists, including Zarqawi’s people, and criminal elements of the Iraqi society, all function under the umbrella of the Baathist-terrorist organization. Syria also plays an important role, training insurgents and facilitating their entry into Iraq through direct coordination with the Baathist terror organizations, with Baathist operatives crossing between Syria and Iraq to direct terror operations, such as in Qaim, Mosul, and other places.

One high-ranking Baathist who was captured was wearing the new trendy, Baathist look, which is Wahhabi, with a short dishdasha and a long beard. He confessed that suicide bombers come to Iraq and they stay in safe-houses, waiting for a call with their orders to drive a suicide car. Evidence also shows suicide bombers hands tied to the steering wheels with chains and their feet tied to the accelerator pedal with duct tape. Evidence also shows a second car following to detonate the car if the suicide bomber should hesitate.

How to defeat the enemy:

Fast response and quick maneuvering of Iraqi units is essential in fighting terrorism. ... Conventional heavy weapons must not be the basic choice to fight terrorists. The war against terrorism is not a war of firepower. It is a war of intelligence, and it is a war of social and political engagement, before military action. Frankly, only Iraqis understand enough about their own very complex and intricate society to pursue this goal.

Increasing the number of the current Iraqi military and security forces is not necessarily the answer to fighting terrorism. What we need now is to enhance the capabilities of the Iraqi military, its training and its weapons, so that Iraqis will be able to stand in the face of terrorism on their own. As President Bush says, as the Iraqis stand up, the US will stand down.

The need to work together:

Since the liberation of Baghdad, over two years ago, we and our American friends have been engaged in a crucial struggle in the war on terrorism. On behalf of myself and all Iraqis, I am enormously grateful for the sacrifice of brave and generous Americans, who have given so much that my people will live in freedom.

In sum, Iraq is a critical part of the War on Terrorism and winning this war can only be achieved by full co-operation between the United States and Iraq."

... is a dead terrorist:

Iraqi lawmakers are taking a tough stance against terrorism. They have approved the death penalty for anyone financing or provoking terrorism. It's in response to the almost daily homicide bombings in Iraq.

"Iron Fist" operation kills 36 terrorists in operations near Qaim, near the Syrian border.

Iraq the Model's lastest article is concerned about the change in election rules that the National Assembly voted on, and rightly so. The change is to redefine the conditions for the '2/3rds veto' of the Constitution to go from 2/3rds of actual voters to 2/3rds of registered voters.

These power plays are very dangerous precedent for Iraq. Having 2/3rds "no" of actual voters is a very high bar even under the current circumstances, and the point of it was to make sure the views of minorities in Iraq were considered. Given the sensitive situation with Sunni participation in the process, with Sunnis not deciding if boycott or if voting 'no' would be better, this only underscores the marginalization of them politically. It's wrong. Even if the national assembly has some technical right to change the rules (which I dont think they do), this gives the whiff of raising the bar to stop the constitution. It's not necessary. If the Constitution is not broadly supported enough to pass under the rules, they will need to do better and create a Constitution that could get broad support.

The problem is the current Jafaari Government has shown itself to be too immature and partisan to handle the task of grand coalition-building. Rather than looking out for Iraq's interests, they are pushing Shi'ite interests, an acceptable position for one player in a political environment, but not for a Constitutional Assembly on the eve of an historic vote.

Omar of ITM in a previous article explains some of the problems. He starts with some incisive comments on the vagaries of Iraq's new democratic politics, including the real reason for the "Bedouin on a camel" insult that Iraqi minister made against the Saudi foreign minister:

It looks clear now that the export-the-crisis is still considered a valid policy for Iraqi politicians and that’s in my opinion why interior minister Bayan Jebor made his inflammatory statement against the Saudi foreign minister so that they shifted attention away from the Kurdish-Sheat conflict.

Yet he ends with a comment that makes clear at least some Iraqis know the fight they are in:

Right now most Iraqis are looking forward to a new government with greater hopes since it’s going to be there for whole four years and this shall give people the impression that we have the time to improve the situation and would be telling the terrorists that “we’re here for four years and you’ve got to realize that we’re ready for a long battle, are you ready for such a long battle too?”.

... The feeling that the road is going to be rough and costly is growing but hope isn’t lost though and I have seen this clear in the eyes of an Iraqi who talked on TV, this man lost two brothers in the Balad massacre a few days ago yet he said “freedom isn’t for free."

The core democratic values in Iraq are strengthening. Their commitment to Iraq's freedom, sovereignty and democracy is being tested and forged by terrorist attacks. The Constitution will almostly certainly pass. The people are seeing democratic leaders in action, and so may well shift towards better leaders in December elections. Iraqis see that hope and persevere, as they must. Indeed, freedom isn't free, but it is worth it.

Bill Roggio's 4th Rail has done a masterful job of recounting the last month and half of 'River Wars' campaigning near the Syrian border and in Tal Afar, showing in detail the progress of the military campaign and how it fits together. You don't get that sense at all if yu just follow the 'bombing of the day' type news reporting from AP/AFP/Reuters.

Overall, the many months of insurgent sweeps through the western and northern Iraq towns, and closing down the 'rat lines' are bearing fruit. Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabor noted Al Qaeda's weaker state in Iraq today, while mentioning that Al Qaeda is looking to send terrorist followers to other Arab countries:

Mr Jabor said foreign Arab militants now numbered less than 1,000 compared to between 2,500 and 3,000 six months ago. They were much weaker but readier to inflict more civilian casualties: "There are indications of a sharp weakening of the capabilities of the insurgents," he said.

U.S. kills terrorists near the Syrian border

At least 28 militants were killed in fighting Sunday, Davis said, bringing the two-day toll among insurgents to 36. There have been no serious U.S. casualties in the operation, he said.

... "There's only so many of them out there," Davis said of the insurgents. "The enemy has a problem out here — every time he shows up he gets bombs dropped on his head ... What you're seeing now is the dissolution of their network."

Marine aircraft struck a group of seven insurgents between Karabilah and Sadah, killing four. The others ran into a nearby building, joining other fighters who opened fire on Marines. Warplanes then hit the building with six precision-guided bombs, the military said. In the same area, a suicide car bomber approached a Marine position but detonated 200 yards away, it said.

This is a war of attrition, and the side being attrited away is the other side.