First, apologies to Jay Garner, the quickly sacked first US Viceroy of Iraq. I have repeatedly stated that he had no relevant experience. I was ignorant of his position as autocrat in the Kurdish zone after the first Gulf War.
In March, 2004, Garner told the BBC that he was fired because he called for quick elections. Here is lengthy coverage of Plan Iraq, courtesy of Greg Palast.
Now, I don't know anyone who will argue that the situation has improved in the last couple of years in Iraq. The attacks grow more numerous. The animosity towards the occupation forces grow greater, with the lion's share reserved for the United States.&nsbp;
So, why couldn't elections have happened earlier? Was it a coincidence that they were delayed until after the US elections? Assuming anyone even wants expat Iraqis like Allawi and Yawar to be in charge, wouldn't they have had a better chance before the current situation? And lastly, why did on one day the head Iraqi election commissioner say preliminary results would be available, while on the next day, election day, nothing was?
In truth, little to nothing has changed in the last 22 months to insure a more sagacious result from the Iraqi elections. In this way, the Bush adminstration made a mockery of the Germany and Japan they so often reminded Americans about.
America didn't liberate Japan and Germany. And precious few Americans alive today had anything to do with it.
This post is in part a response to the abyssmal post, linked to by Direland, by M Malkin, on the "silence" of the left on Iraqi elections.