It seems that the next big hurdle for Iraq will be the elections, tentatively set for Jan. 30. The Bush administration is counting on these going smoothly, and showing Americans and Iraqis that democracy will fluorish. However, with only a month to go, Iraq's largest minority party has withdrawn from the polls, creating the likelihood of an even more lopsided representative government. I'm curious as to everyone's thoughts on the validity of these elections, whether or not they will happen 1/30, whether the results will be honored by the populace, or if it will result in a bloody civil war. It seems to me that the last option is what the Sunnis seem to want, knowing that the political process won't give them the power they want.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... _2004dec27

I'm about ready to let the Sunnis have what they want. We'll see how well they fare in a civil war against the Shi'ites who outnumber them 5 to 1. Stupid motherfuckers if they boycott the vote.

It is also not mentioned much, but it is supremely stupid for the election to be a national election for a single proportional parliament. In a nation as naturally divided as Iraq, they really should have federalized the process so that the Sunnis would at least have some feeling of local representation. But I think the Americans fear that this would lead to the breakup of the country. Ironically, these national elections will probably more likely lead to a civil war.

Bring on the civil war.

* comedy ensues *

--PunkDavid

It's so cool how European colonialism from 100 years ago is fucking the United States now. "Sure, you can have the New World...good luck fuckers!"

So, if a civil war does break out, what does that mean for the US? Was all of this in vain? Will we pull out completely if even more chaos ensues post-election? How will that go over here at home? It seems that the administration has based its justifications for this war on spreading freedom and democracy. If that doesn't happen on Jan. 30, as they would like us to believe, what then?

Don't worry, they'll find someone to blame.

--PunkDavid

I'm sure they will. I just hope that we don't decide to pick a side, and keep our troops over there. You think there's Vietnam comparisons now......

I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that I don't really foresee a "happy ending" for the Iraq situation. I see it either getting really ugly, and the US abandoning it, or it getting really ugly, and the US staying on for years to come. I suppose I'd rather see the former happen, but what does that say to the families of the 1100+ dead American soldiers and civilians, the families of the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, etc? At this stage of the game, I don't see the elections happening and everything being all well and good.

I should sticky this when I get back from Cozumel.

The elections will only be valid if the people accept them to be valid. I'm still of the opinion that the main reason I opposed this war was that it would beget more war. If a civil war does break out, another important factor will be the role of the US troops. Will they try to mitigate civil war? Can they mitigate civil war?



I bet they'd try to say something along the lines of "We tried to spread freedom and democracy, but the Iraqi people wouldn't fight for it."

Hmm.

In this election, the Iraqi's are electing local representatives to a write their constitution. That's all. Each district will be electing their own popular individual, so Sunni's, Shi'ites, and Kurds will all be electing people to represent them accordingly. The entire idea behind this constitution was representation from all three walks of life in Iraq. Saying that the Sunni's are being shut out of the Democratic process and that will lead to war is a bit misleading.

Not all Sunni's are pissed off at the situation in Iraq. Many Sunni's are just as pissed off at the rebels as you and I are. Think of it this way. Saddam ruled a country where he killed people to obtain political power. The Iraqi's didn't like this. The Zarqawi's of Iraq are crazy if they think the people are going to embrace a political party that is killing people to influence the course of Iraq. These minority parties that are falling out...so what? That is there choice, and to those who bow out, they cannot complain in a free Democracy. After all, Iraq is free now.

And I don't think the Bush Administration has painted as rosey of a picture that you guys seem to say. All I've heard is that violence is going to increase up until the election...not the contrary.

This election is critical to strong, supportive, encompassing constitution. And even though violence exists, it will not delegitemize the election.

I still stand that this would have been a lot less painful of a process if Iraq had been broken into three nations. One for the Kurds, one for the Sunni's, one for the Shi'ites. As it stands, the major problem exists that the Sunni's no longer have a homeland. It will be Shi'ite dominated governments from Pakistan to Israel, and the Sunni's, although a minority, are not going to like losing the power.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6755485/

Will the Sunni terrorists be plotting terrorist attacks in Sunni dominated voting districts? No. The Sunni vote will not be marginalized. Anyhow, that's not the point of saying that violence won't delegitemize the election. I mean, how many hundreds of thousands of American's didn't vote in the election of 1864? Is Lincoln's presidency delegitemized because an actual war was taking place and people couldn't vote?

I think there are two assumptions you are incorrectly making. The first is that Sunnis are going to vote in significant enough numbers to have any kind of representation in the first congress. You said that "each district will be electing their own popular individual". This is incorrect. I think it SHOULD be that way, but it isn't. There is one single pool of voters, the entire country of Iraq, voting to elect a slate of representatives from many different parties on a straight proportional representative basis. Therefore if there is a major boycott of the vote, which many experts predict there will be, the first parliament could consist of less than 5% Sunnis, and this is the group that will be writing the constitution.

The other mistaken assumption is that al Zarqawi and the other organized terrorist groups have political ambitions. I'm not convinced that they do. As far as I've seen, they are most interested in causing chaos and confusion and disrupting any attempts by Americans to stabilize the country and promote a democratic government. I think they would like to keep the Americans in Iraq for as long as possible. I've heard the argument many times that we are in Iraq to fight the terrorists "over there as opposed to over here". Well, I think that is exactly what they want as well. They are just as happy to kill American soldiers in Baghdad as they are to kill American civilians in New York, maybe more so. They don't even have to leave home to do it this way. Also, if these terrorist insurgents DO have politcal designs, I don't think they're the kind of designs that care whether or not they have the Iraqi people "embracing" them.

I will agree with you 100% that we should not have tried to hold this ridiculous state called "Iraq" together, and we should have let it naturally fall into its constituent parts of three separate nations.

--PunkDavid

I'm looking up more specific info on the Election process over there, and not find too good of info, perhaps you could link me?

A curious question. What makes you think that the terrorists and Sunni political parties are not tied to one another? Especially when you take into apart Sunni history in Iraq.

Did you know that there is a major political movement for an independent Kurdistan going on right now too?

But again, if Sunni's CHOOSE not to vote and to boycott, then that is their problem, their choice. They have no right to complain and a voting boycott by one group does not in any way shape or form delegetimize this election. The beauty of freedom.

I'm looking for something online also. I heard it on NPR a couple of weeks ago on a show where they had two political scientists who had spent the last year in Iraq researching the political situation for the US and Iraqi interim governments. Among the problems they were predicting for the next year or two, they both made the point of highlighting that error in the organization of the first election (and they both advocated delaying the election for 3 to 6 months, although I'm not sure that would do any more good than harm).

It was one of these two shows:

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2004/ ... b_main.asp

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2004/ ... a_main.asp



They could very well have ties, but how close is an important question. I mean Saddam had "ties" to al Qaeda, but they were really thin. Personally, logic tells me that the Sunnis who are participating in the political process are not the same Sunnis who are participating in the insurgency because their aims seem fundamentally at odds. The terrorist activity would seem to discourage people from participating in the election, and since the attacks are occuring primarily in Sunni areas, they are discouraging their own people, not the opposition. So if the Sunni politicians are closely aligned with the insurgents, it begs the question, "why even participate in the political process at all?"



Well, yeah, but that movement has existed in force for 15 years. The Kurds are enough of an organized political force however, that they will have enough political leverage to shape the constitution so that they have a mostly autonomous region much as they have now, while still being part of a greater Iraq. I'm not concerned about a revolution in the Kurdish area at this time.



I agree wholeheartedly. However, that doesn't change the facts on the ground, which are that the Shi'ites will dominate the constitutional congress, will not include Sunni considerations, and the Sunnis will likely end up as an oppressed minority with no political recourse except insurgent violence which will eventually lead to a civil war. The Sunnis will be crushed, but it may draw the Saudis and Syrians in on the Sunni side, and teh Iranians on the Shi'ite side, and now you have a regional conflagration which the US would be powerless to quell, as if they aren't powerless already.

It's a bad scene.

--PunkDavid

A-fucking-men.
See my above comment about colonialism biting us in the ass

European colonialism certainly created much of this situation, but let's not let the Baathist Sunnis off the hook either. As a small minority, they oppressed and suppressed the large Shi'ite majority in Iraq for decades. Now they're getting bit in the ass also.

Sunnis and Shi'ite live pretty peacefully side by side in most Muslim nations, and this kind of shit only happens when one of them pulls a political power play on the other.

--PunkDavid

Top Sunni Party withdraws from elections
A leading Sunni Muslim party is withdrawing from Iraq's 30 January elections, saying persistent violence would prevent people from voting in the Sunni north and west.

"We are withdrawing," Muhsin Abd al-Hamid, head of the Iraqi Islamic Party, said on Monday.

"We are not calling for a boycott but we said we would take part only if certain conditions had been met and they have not."

His party had threatened to boycott the election unless it was postponed by up to six months to ensure that voters across the country would be able to vote.

Violence in Sunni areas has raised fears that voters there would be too intimidated to cast their ballots.

The Iraqi Islamic Party had fielded a list of 275 candidates for the 30 January vote, which will choose a National Assembly to draft a constitution and appoint a government.

Alright, let's look at some other things.

As you know, a solid number of Marines at my unit were overseas. My platoon staff sargaent, or I don't even know what billet he has, he was with the 225 Marines. He was in and out of the Sunni Triangle frequently. What's funny is that he feels the real problems facing Iraq are not being brought forth.

Iraq is being held together as one nation for one VERY good reason. The Sunni's are educated, the Shi'ites are not. Sunni's are being kept in the mix because there is very little faith that the Shi'ites could function as an autonomous nation. There were very few schools, no university's in Shi'ite Iraq. Sunni's were brought to the table because most of the elite Sunni's are western educated, they have a better grasp of western government. I mean, we need to keep ourselves in reality...a lot of these people EMBRACED the western lifestyle to the fullest degree. Iraq needs a group of educated individuals to prosper. These are the people who are going to build the economy and educate the people of Iraq.

This is one of my problems with what is going on Iraq. Even if they have no political representation, through education they still control Iraq, and can gain political leverage through that. We also must keep in mind that this is just an election for the constitution. Kurds will get their leverage, and even if Sunni's do not have political representation, they will be able to get it in the future.

I think we are kind of over reacting here. This is going to be a free democracy. Do we honestly think that Bush is going to sit by and let a Shi'ite run dictatorship take hold? Of course not. There will be freedom of religion, freedom of press...basic freedoms that we take for granted. Through such a system, how exactly do you guys think that the Shi'ites will truly take advantage of the Sunni's?

In regards the violence in the Sunni areas. They are trying to intimidate the Iraqi national guard and gain strong footholds with which to gain a strong defensive ground...like Fallujah. I doubt they are specifically targeting innocent Iraqi's. What you seem to hear is a Marine or soldier dead here or there, a few Iraqi national guardsmen killed in a building, with 25, 50, 70 innoncent bystanders taken out in the process. As the election draws near, I don't think the attacks will be concentrated in Sunni dominated areas, but I think there will be intimidation attacks on Shi'ite areas to detour them from voting.

You also have to take into account the recent Bin Laden tape refrencing Zarqawi. Let's face it, that was a political endorsement. One reason I feel the terrorists are directly tied to some of the Sunni political movements. Kind of like how Fatah was run by Arafat.

This is a good point that is not talked about much.



I kinda think it's overreacting to think that this is going to be a free democracy. Either Bush is going to make sure that there is a friendly government (to themselves as well as towards their neighbors and us), or there will be a "free democracy". You can't have it both ways. Maybe we'll get lucky and get both, but I'm not optimistic. And it's not about the Shi'ites taking advantage of the Sunnis, it's about them crushing them. If there continues to be Sunni led insurgent violence after the Shi'ites are in control of the government (and "control" may still be a couple of years away), why would they not put down the resistance in a manner that the Americans could never do because it would be too brutal? That's how the Sunnis will ultimately get theirs.



Again, I think you are confusing the Sunni parties that wish to participate (like the above referrenced Iraqi Islamic Party) and the parties that may have political ambitions, but not the desire to participate and share power with others (Zarqawi, former Baathists, and other terrorist insurgents). The violent actors are served by DISENFRANCHISING their OWN people, not the other parties, because they can't compete in a democratic system. They have more power being outside of the government than in it, unless they are the only power in the government, and the only they will get that is through violent takover of the government. You don't need a majority to take power through violence, you only need enough support, and if all Iraqi Sunnis feel that they are disenfranchised, the violent actors may be able to garner sufficent support to try for a violent power grab. That is the end goal.

--PunkDavid

Good point LW.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-01-07-voa16.cfm

US, Iraqi Military Pushing to Secure Country for Elections
By Alisha Ryu
Baghdad
07-January-2005 1201

Despite daily military operations in Iraq to clear the way for elections on January 30, U.S. commanders acknowledge that some parts of the country are still too dangerous for people to go to the polls. The interim Iraqi government has extended emergency laws in most parts of Iraq for another 30 days to deal with the security crisis.

A top U.S. military commander here, Lieutenant General Thomas Metz, says although many parts of Iraq are peaceful, four large provinces in the country are not yet secure enough for Iraqi citizens to vote. "Those provinces represent where we are concentrating effort to put together the security systems and procedures and the number of soldiers, Iraqi and coalition, to successfully hold elections," he said.

The provinces are Anbar province, which includes the restive town of Ramadi; Ninevah province and its provincial capital, Mosul; Saladin province, which contains Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, and Baghdad province. Together, the provinces contain more than half the population of Iraq.

All of the troubled provinces have significant populations of Sunni Muslims, who opposed the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003 and have formed the core of a small but resilient insurgency in Iraq ever since.

In recent weeks, U.S. and Iraqi forces have greatly intensified their efforts to quell the violence in those problem areas.

The deputy commander of the U.S. Army's First Cavalry Division, whose soldiers patrol a large area of the capital and surrounding areas, says American and Iraqi troops have conducted countless raids and have arrested a number people suspected of taking part in the insurgency.

Brigadier General Jeffery Hammond says many of those arrests were made after citizens called an anonymous tip line, which has recently been established.

"People today are picking up the phone and calling us. They're sharing information," he said. "We've had over 400 calls in the last few months and we action [act on] these things. Callers recently led us to car bombs which were fully rigged to explode, two of them, inside a garage. We found the vehicles. We destroyed them."

But for every car bomb and explosive device found and destroyed, others find a way out into the streets. The latest deadly attack occurred Thursday evening when a U.S. Army armored personnel carrier on patrol hit a roadside bomb in northwestern Baghdad. The explosion killed all seven soldiers inside the vehicle.

The top ground commander in Iraq, General Metz, acknowledges that even if voting could take place in all areas of Iraq by the end of the month, the safety of voters cannot be guaranteed.

"No, I can't guarantee that at all. We are fighting an enemy who cares less about who he kills, when he kills, and how he kills and he will work out a way to find some weakness that we're going to work hard not to give him, but I just cannot guarantee that everyone will be able to go to a poll in total safety," added General Metz. "I cannot put a bubble around every person."

Anticipating a further escalation of violence in the run-up to election day, Iraq's interim government on Thursday extended emergency laws imposed just before the U.S.-led invasion of Fallujah in early November.

The extension gives Iraqi security forces expanded power for 30 more days to pursue insurgents and make arrests. They also give the government the right to impose curfew.

___________________________________________________

Just for a bit of perspective on the safety of Iraqi elections, there are 18 provinces in Iraq, 4 of which are too dangerous to hold elections in at this time. Those four provinces contain more than half of the population of Iraq.

That would be the equivalent of 11 of the United States being too dangerous to hold a national election, and those states being California, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia.

Yeah, this election will be great.

--PunkDavid