January Elections in Iraq? 141
bettiwettiwoo writes "Last week Kofi Annan claimed, in a BBC interview, that: 'You cannot have credible elections [in Iraq] if the security conditions continue as they are now.' Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi disagreed ('pointedly disagreed', according to the International Herald Tribune):'We definitely are going to stick to the timetable of elections in January ... Democracy is going to prevail and is going to win in Iraq.' According to Tony Blair: 'The people who are trying to stop that Iraq coming about, who are engaged in killing, maiming and acts of terrorism, are people who are opposed... to every single one of the values that we in countries like this hold dear.' Iraq the Model points to an IRI poll which states: 'In a stunning display of support for democracy and a strong rebuttal to critics of efforts to bring democratic reform to Iraq, 87% of Iraqis indicated that they plan to vote in January elections. Expanding on the theme, 77% said that "regular, fair elections" were the most important political right for the Iraqi people and 58% felt that Iraqi-style democracy was likely to succeed.' It would appear that the poll was undertaken sometime in July/August this year, but if such a large majority of the Iraqi population continues to favour elections, would it really be fair to the Iraqis to postpone the January elections whatever the security situation and whomever might be against them?"
87% of whom? (Score:3, Insightful)
I took at a poll on job satisfaction at a Bush rally and it was around 95%. I guess America thinks Bush is doing a bang-up job!
No... (Score:5, Insightful)
In a stunning display of support for democracy and a strong rebuttal to critics of efforts to bring democratic reform to Iraq, 87% of Iraqis indicated that they plan to vote in January elections.
You mean, 87% of Iraqi RESPONDENTS indicated that they plan to vote in January elections. This is a self-selecting question: people likely to respond to a poll are more likely to go to the polls than people who don't respond to a poll. At any rate, everyone outside Iraq believes that Iraqis should have the right to self-determination. We believe the same thing of the people of China. But it wouldn't be a smart thing to invade China to effect that.
IRI (Score:5, Insightful)
PS: Did anyone happen to look at who IRI is [iri.org]?
RI's board of directors is chaired by U.S. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) and includes former Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger, former U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, current members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, and individuals from the private sector with backgrounds in international relations, business and government.
Yeah, this is ENTIRELY independent. Mind you, at least one member of the board has some independent ideas [pbs.org].
Q - I thought President Bush said in his speech that, "Either you're for us or against us....anyone who harbors terrorists, or fosters their activity," and he meant terrorists in general. Doesn't Saddam qualify?
...We need to be skillful about this. We need to use scalpels, not sledgehammers.
A - We've got to be looking at priorities here. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have one thing in common, and that is they both hate the United States. Otherwise, they have very little in common.
As a matter of fact, my guess is, if it weren't for the United States, Osama bin Laden would turn on Saddam Hussein. Why? Because Saddam Hussein is the head of a Ba'athist party -- a secular, socialist party. He is anathema to the kind of world that Osama bin Laden wants to reinstall So he's part of the problem; he's not part of the solution. That doesn't mean they can't cooperate, and might not cooperate. But what I'm saying is we need to get our priorities straight, and we've got them straight right now. We're going after number one target.
Iraq could turn out to be number two, but there are a lot of other candidates. Hezbollah, for example, is a global terrorist network, which has attacked the United States and U.S. interests before. How about that?
What if Bush/Blair don't like the result? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, what happens if they don't like the result? I see one of two outcomes being more likely than the interim government being re-elcted and legitimised:
(1) They are re-elected, but international monitors (the UN etc.) do not agree that the election was free and fair. To some extent this is what Kofi Anan is already worrying about.
(2) Ignoring whether (1) is the case or not, what happens if the result of the elections is not what Bush/Blair want? What if an Iran-style shia religious party is elected? This is the problem with democracy - it doesn't always give you the answer you want. The US was quite happy with democracy in South American until socialists like Allende started being elected in Chile and elsewhere. Then they sent in the CIA and regimes like Pinochet's were the result. Is this the future that the middle east has to look forward to?
Learn to say it. quagmire (Score:5, Insightful)
Also at the risk of being modded off topic I'd like to make a genaral statement on international terrorism.
Recently a proBush stance by a columnist in my local free rag (Galway, Ireland) attracted a letters page full of rebukes. The columnist in question retaliated by saying that global terrorism is the biggest threat to "the world" today (it's not, poverty is) and that George Bush is the only solution. Well I agree that terrorism is a huge problem but ya know if the British government had listened to the plight of the Catholics in Northern Ireland in the sixties, there would be no IRA today. With aid reconciliation and understanding. Attempts to understand the root causes of support for radicalism ie. war, alienation and poverty are often met with more success then hate.
Hate breeds hate. Radical action breeds radical reaction. Stop bombing people into the ground and it just might not happen to you.
If you think I'm talking waffle then google 'canary wharf IRA' and compare that with last weekends round of talks where sworn enemies are now sitting around a table to talk.
There is a way out and it is not about increased defence spending, unethical imprisonment and unilateral invasion.
It is about putting peace before closing your eyes to world suffering.
Get informed [fpif.org]
Don't misunderestimate Kofi! (Score:5, Insightful)
The quote is taken out of its relevant context. Another way to rephrase the quote could be:
Military gangwar is part and parcel of the current conflict. The feudal ganglords will not cede authority easily. Those with support (military and political) will bargain for power in the same manner as the Afghani process. Suspicious one-candidate boundaries will be drawn up and ad-hoc ministerial privileges doled out to unelected strongmen.
Bottom line: Its not democracy.
Two choices in the near future (Score:4, Insightful)
1.) Escalate.
2.) Pull out.
Either way we lose. Thanks Mr. Bush for giving us two great choices.
Its up to the Iraqis (Score:5, Insightful)
> the January elections?
There is no chance that the US or anyone else is going to tell the Iraqis not to hold elections. Allawi knows that his continued power is absolutely dependent on his ability to hold elections on time.
He also knows that most Iraqis live in areas where the security situation permits voting. If a security disaster ensues and precincts containing 20% of population have to be repolled due to security incidents, then 80% of the Iraqi people will have had the chance to choose their own government and Allawi can rightly claim an historic achievement.
I also disagree with the posts that claim the polling data is out of touch with the Iraqi people. The same polls that show that Iraqis overwhelmingly want to choose their own government also show that over 80% do not believe that Americans will allow the Iraqis to choose their own government. Their views are entirely self consistent, they just don't take our goernment at its word. By enabling the Iraqis to choose their own leaders, the United States will go a tremendous distance towards easing their fears.
Absolutely unrealistic (Score:4, Insightful)
Now let's compare with Iraq: Unlike the Germans, the Iraqis have no cultural ties or common traditions with the Americans/British occupying them. They have absolutely no democratic legacy, not even a failed one, that anyone can remember there. There is a strong resentment against the occupying forces, and any ideas stemming from them.
Unlike occupied Germany there is absolutely no safety guaranteed by the occcupying forces. The land has spun out of control, several cities are out of control, and military action is still taking place. No economic recovery is taking place, and doing business is now again nearly impossible for foreign investors, abductions of foreigners is commonplace.
There are no well-known political movements beyond ties to ethnic group and maybe clan. The interim government is resented by many Iraqis as a puppet of the occupying forces, and the only media trusted or at least respected by most Iraqis are American-critic Al-Dschasira. Media installed by the USA like Al-Hurra are perceived as propaganda instruments, and this is most likely a correct assumption.
So there are no political movements to have enough confidence in that they worth casting a vote for, a big problem about independent media and therefore freedom of speech, a population resenting the US and Western ideas, sometimes including democracy, and an unstable situation in general.
In a country where it is even problematic to get one's children into a school, and safely home and fed, is there really that much a chance for democracy? I guess not.
This is just an illusion made up to content American voters for this fall, not really help the Iraqis with anything.
Re:Learn to say it. quagmire (Score:3, Insightful)
democratically appointed? What the hell is that supposed to mean? An official is either elected, or appointed. And I sure as hell don't remember voting for (or against) Kofi.
Re:What if Bush/Blair don't like the result? (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually events in January have no political effect on Bush whatsoever. If he loses the election, those events will reflect poorly on Kerry. If he wins, those events will lower his approval rating but since he can't run for a third term what does he care? If anything it hurts cheney politically as he will be tied to the bush administration and any attempts by him to run for president would be affected. It would probably affect McCain as he will probably be the next republican to run for president and since he supports bush if bush messes up its his ass too.
But no, I don't think Bush really worries about whats happening in January, it won't affect the election so what does it matter?
Re:Learn to say it. quagmire (Score:0, Insightful)
Kofi Annan believes that no wars should be fought by the United States without explicit UN approval and control, and therefore the US action in Iraq is "illegal". He said exactly that a few days ago, in a statement timed to cause maximum damage and embarassment to George Bush, shortly before he speaks at the UN, and in the midst of the election.
Of course he's going to assert that elections should not be held. If they are held, and successfully show that the Iraqi people support democracy, and can have a fair election, his premise that the USA's action was illegal becomes less supportable. So he will do everything he can to undermine the elections.
Kofi Annan would be happiest if the USA did a Vietnam-style humiliating withdrawal, and Iraq was plunged back into a cruel, totalitarian regime. Because that would prove that he, and his buddies in France, Germany, and Russia (although they are recanting now that they've had their 9/11), were right all along when they opposed the US action in Iraq.
Re:87% of whom? (Score:3, Insightful)
Then, again, this *is* slashdot...
Seriously, though...assuming (as you appear to) that people in hostile locations weren't polled, how do you accomplish that?
Side-note: I'm not a W supporter, but I'm employed...don't vote Kerry out of stupidity, please. Plenty of presidential alternatives to the awful two big ones at www.vote-smart.org [vote-smart.org]
Re:87% of whom? (Score:4, Insightful)
That is the thinking that puts true radicals in power. Putin is reinstating the USSR because "we must defeat Chechens no matter what." The US Electoral system is based on voting for candidates, not against them. If we don't remember that, we risk the continued race to the bottom the two parties have us on.
What about the nonsense "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush?" I know of several people that are so ticked that Nader may not be allowed on their state ballot, that they are going to march to the polls and vote Bush if Nader isn't a choice. I hope Democrats doing the most un-democratic thing imaginable (trying to deny ballot access) backfires.
And, if Kerry wins because people voted against Bush, would he really have a mandate?
No. In our system, you march to the polls and vote in support of someone. I plan to march to the poll on election day and pull the leaver in support of the candidate I favor the most.
Re:What if Bush/Blair don't like the result? (Score:3, Insightful)
If Bush wins and the public turn against him, his clout with Congress plummets. Regardless of statuatory authority (or really, I suppose, because of the limits of that authority,) a President who lacks popular support doesn't get much done. Whether or not the President is up for re-election, Congresscritters are always campaigning, and one-third of the Senate is up every two years, so if there is advantage to defiance of the White House then defiance will be the rule.