« Our Greatest Threat | Main | Pearl Harbor »

December 6, 2004

Upcoming Iraqi Elections

Should we delay the elections in Iraq? There are pros and cons on each side. Although holding them on January 30 as scheduled is risky, it is my belief that they should not be delayed.

Here are the primary reasons why some are in favor of delaying the elections:

  1. If not enough people are able to vote the election will be seen as illegitimate. If the election is not seen as legitimate, the new government will not be accepted, and the insurgency will gain a propaganda coup.
  2. If election day monitors are chased from the polling places, the vote result will be questioned.
  3. Seventeen Iraqi groups (mainly Sunni, but also some Kurds) have called for a delay in elections. If elections go ahead as scheduled, and do not work out, they will not accept the new government. While not a majority, the Sunnis do constitute a large group within Iraq.
  4. Bottom line; if the election is seen as illegitimate, we may end up in a worse situation than the one we are in today.
  5. Former U.N. special envoy to Iraq Lakhdar Brahimi, who is described as the architect of the elections, says that elections cannot be held under current conditions.
  6. Fifty-five days is not enough time to secure the country enough to ensure a reasonably legitimate result.
  7. A delay would "...allow more time to persuade groups boycotting the election to take part and to bring calm to regions roiled by a tenacious insurgency."
  8. If the new government is not recognized as legitimate by Iraqis, it also may not be recognized by other countries around the world. This, too, would feed upon itself in a vicious cycle.
On the other side, here are the reasons why elections should be held as scheduled:
  1. There is little reason to believe that the security situation will be dramatically improved in a few months time. A delay longer than a few months risks exacerbating internal tensions, resulting in a situaion worse than the one we face today.
  2. A delay would be a morale and propaganda victory for the insurgents. They would be ever more determined to press home their attacks. It would also serve as a recruitment tool, and those who are now "sitting on the fence" might be persuaded to join their ranks.
  3. By the same token, a delay would demoralize the Iraqi government and security forces. Recruitment could drop, and we may not be able to build them up to the point that they can effectively operate independantly to take back their country.
  4. The flip side of #3 and #4 is that if we can pull off reasonably legitimate elections, they will serve as an enormous morale booster to the Iraqi government, people, and security forces. It will also demoralize the insurgents, having all of the opposite effects listed in #3.
  5. A delay would be seen by many Iraqis as "proof" that the U.S. has no intention of ever holding elections, and that we intend on stealing their oil turning the country into a colony. This line will be parroted by anti-American groups everywhere.
  6. Many of the Iraqi groups who are advoting delay are not operating in good faith. Their real objective is to gain political advantage, and to renegotiate power-sharing arrangements. For example, the Association of Muslim Scholars says that free and fair elections cannot be held as long as U.S. troops are even in Iraq.
  7. The major Shi'ite groups, including the religious leadership headed by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, say that elections should proceed as scheduled. They represent the majority of Iraqis.
  8. Most of the country is actually fairly calm. The news media concentrates on the areas of turmoil. Thus, voting will proceed as planned, in an orderly and lawful manner, in most of the country. Most Iraqis, therefore, will see the results as being legitimate.
All in all, the primary reason for going ahead with elections as scheduled is that not to do so will be taken by the insurgents as a victory and by the Iraqi security forces as a defeat. And they will be right.

Excessive carping about U.S. failures during the occupation will not change matters in the near future. Reasoned analysis may serve us well for the future, but we we are in the situation that we are in, for better or worse. It seems the best course of action is to hold the elections as scheduled.

Arthur Chrenkoff has an article posted on Opinion Journal on Iraq and the elections. As has been the case in all of his "Good News from Iraq" series of articles, he demonstrates that all is not bad news coming out of that country:

It would be dangerous and very unwise to ignore or downplay all the bad things happening in Iraq right now; but it would be equally dangerous if without hearing other voices and other stories from inside the country we were to give up and walk away, leaving Iraqis alone to try to secure their future. The bombs are deadly, but the perception that in Iraq today there is nothing else but the bombs could prove even deadlier in the long run--for the Iraqis, the Middle East, and the West.
Indeed, he says, many Iraqis
...hardly recognize their country from the foreign media coverage. Westerners, too, both military and civilians, upon their return are often finding to their surprise and concern they had lived and worked in a different country to that their loved ones, friends and neighbors back home saw every night on the news.
Now go and read the whole thing.

(Hat tip to Jane for finding Arthur's article first)

Posted by Tom at December 6, 2004 10:10 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/234

Comments

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)