A Counter Argument
George Turner over at his Bastardsword blog, proposes this Counter Argument:

I'm sure you've all seen the quotes from babbling Blix and assorted other ass biscuits about how the sarin chemical gas shell that was used as an IED must've been some kind of bizarre fluke. Here's another way to look at it. Iraq is apparently the only country where WMDs are so common that our soldiers can get attacked with wildly illegal nerve gas completely by accident. Isn't that amazing? I must go think on that for a while. I suggest you do the same. It might prove useful.

Emerson View:
Absolutely on-target. There is one more thing to think about. The terrifying part of this is that we now have proof that terrorists IN IRAQ have (or had) at LEAST one WMD artillery shell. The question to ponder then becomes; "If they had only ONE WMD round, would they waste it as a roadside bomb?"  ¶ 11:53 (6) comments

  The Iraq Elections Debate: Zakaria Vs. Kaus

An excellent article by Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters blog, shows the relevent arguments of the two authors, then proposes a fabulously on-target observation:

It seems to me that both arguments have put the cart before the horse. For one thing, you cannot have representative democracy without taking a census of the electorate, something which cannot have been completed in the current environment. And who takes such a census? The Americans? I doubt that an American census would satisfy many of the occupation's critics; we can't even do one in the US without a lot of rancid debate about undercounts and political shenanigans. In Iraq, where the CPA might have good reason to undercount in difficult areas such as the Sunni Triangle, Najaf, and Kufa (even legitimate ones, such as lack of access while bullets are flying), you can bet your last dinar that any result would have zero credibility.

The only authority that could attempt a census with any measure of credibility is a reasonably independent Iraqi government, transitional or not. With Americans and British troops providing security, such an effort will still take months, meaning any national or regional elections before then would be hopelessly flawed. I don't even know if anyone has promulgated voter qualifications, such as what constitutes an Iraqi citizen, what kinds of documentation are needed for identification, and so on. It's easy to call for elections when your whole life has been spent in a stable democracy -- most of those questions were answered before you were born.

On the other hand, I agree with Kaus about rolling elections. Let's establish control where we can, conduct censuses under the auspices of the Iraqi Governing Council, and demonstrate to those areas currently experiencing insurgencies that democracy can work in Iraq. Successful elections will put more pressure on the militias to disband as Iraqis see how normative representative government can be. Rather than dropping democracy like a philosophical bomb on the entire country at once, establish it where it's most likely to succeed and let it grow into the rest of the country.

Emerson's View:
I think there is a component of the "Misuderestimation" game here. Bush has been excoriated by the press, the congresscritters and even many conservative pundits for not making his argument over and over and over again in order to fully lay out the case for war and the post-war plans.
The reason I say this is I see quite clearly that every move, plan, announcement or sneeze made by this Administration is disected and spun. No problem in peacetime, BIG problem during wartime. If Bush announced that he had been thinking along Captain Ed's lines (and I see the logic behind them), the inability to do an accurate census would be front-page news with claims of; Discrimination! Corruption! Elections for Oil! All of this for months during the Iraqi election cycle, giving more ammunition to the press and anti-American Left (but I repeat myself). In fact, multiple election timelines occuring during this "test" phase of local census completions would allow the propaganda machine to try out different memes to find one that's catchy enough to stick.
So it makes much more sense to allow your enemies (and make no mistake, the Press is an enemy of the President. Always. Just not as much when they have one who agrees with them.) to make all sorts of claims (no exit strategy, blundering, plodding, quagmire) RATHER than allow them to destroy your plan before it starts, or while it is not yet complete.
Or worse yet, demand that the U.N. review and "legitimize" it.

Update: The Kaus argument is here. The Zakaria argument is here.  ¶ 13:27 (1) comments