Iraqi Elections a sham

[Nickatilynx]

Peter Khalil: Don't ignore Sunni triangle

January 31, 2005
US hopes for a more stable Iraq are riding on the legitimacy of a democratically elected Iraqi government emerging from the fire and blood of last night's election. The Bush administration views elections as the key political element in the campaign against the mainly Sunni insurgency.

Yet the elections will not succeed in calming the violence unless Iraqis themselves perceive the new government as legitimate. And among the requirements of legitimacy, one of the most critical is that the Sunni population must have participated and be represented on an equal footing with all of the other ethnicities in the country.

For this reason, the US is courting danger in leaning too heavily on these Iraqi national elections as a solution to the insurgency. Because the administration, the interim Iraqi government, and key Shia political leaders insisted on holding elections on January 30, only 15 of the 18 Iraqi provinces participated relatively free of intimidation. There was only limited participation in towns and cities in the Sunni triangle such as Fallujah, Ramadi, and Tikrit.

The lack of Sunni Arab participation in adequate numbers is akin to leaving Florida out of the US elections. A small Sunni representation in the new national assembly relative to the fact they make up to 20 per cent of the Iraqi population will only serve to fuel the insurgency and give it a potent new weapon in the propaganda war. The slogan of "disenfranchisement through occupation and sham elections" could solidify some of the more disparate insurgent groups into an insurgency of broader and more credible nationalist appeal, at least among the Sunni population. This is the exact opposite result of the administration's desire to bring disaffected Sunnis into the political process.

If the majority of Sunni Arabs find themselves excluded from this political process, last night's elections may only speed the way to an eventual dismemberment of Iraq. Since ministers in the new Iraqi government do not have to be members of the national assembly, one hopeful sign that civil war may be avoided is the willingness of Shia leaders such as Abdul Aziz al-Hakim to appoint Sunnis to cabinet posts even if Sunni parties only win nominal representation. In addition, assurances that Sunni leaders, clerics and jurists will be part of the constitutional drafting committee is a critical element in averting a dismemberment of Iraq.









Ensuring Sunni Arab participation in the political process over the next 12 months in the hope of weakening the insurgency is also tied to progress in security and economic reconstruction. The US still finds itself in the middle of a tough three-step process on all of these fronts. US and Iraqi forces have already completed most of the initial security tasks of retaking Fallujah, pockets of Ramadi, and about 20 other towns in the Sunni triangle and returning them to Iraqi government control.

The next step, however, is by far the greater challenge. US and Iraqi forces must hold and stabilise those towns and cities, establishing basic law and order, make progress with reconstruction efforts in electricity and water infrastructure, and defeat any insurgents who remain or try to return.

Finally, the majority of Sunnis still remain to be convinced that these elections will have given them genuinely fair and significant representation in the federal government and will therefore serve their interests. Sunni Arabs appointed to key ministries, tackling high unemployment rates in the Sunni triangle with job programs, and public education efforts by the Iraqi Electoral Commission are critical to promoting this belief.

Still, over the next 12 months political developments alone will not defeat the insurgency. Terrorist violence and insurgent activity will likely continue after these elections. The insurgents will do everything they can to derail a political process, which will deal their movement a serious blow if most Sunni Iraqis eventually come to see it as representative, inclusive and therefore legitimate.

If the newly elected Iraqi government can overcome these short-term obstacles with the support of the coalition and pave the way for an inclusive political process, the insurgency will eventually lose steam. Sound economic and social reconstruction efforts, together with continued joint counter-insurgency operations by the US military and the Iraqi army and police, will serve to weaken the insurgency over the following 12-24 months. By early 2007, it should be possible to contain the insurgency to the point where the US administration can begin contemplating a large-scale withdrawal of US troops.

Again, legitimacy will be key to accomplishing this long-term goal. Thus, Washington must resist the temptation to try to control the political process which will be guided by the new Iraqi government. It should focus on maintaining sound structural foundations and underlying principles, and not supporting personalities who may be in or out of favour.

A democratically elected Iraqi government in which Sunni, Shia, Kurd, Turkoman, Christian, Yazidi, communist, capitalist, secularist and Islamist are all represented may not even be a government the US particularly likes – particularly if Sunni ex-Baathists or radical clerics such as Moqtada al-Sadr hold key cabinet posts. But such a government will be legitimate, with the support of an overwhelming Iraqi majority, and will serve to hold the country together to the detriment of the insurgents.

As long as the new Iraqi government does not attempt to erode the important principles that buttress a pluralistic democratic state, the US should not attempt to fiddle with the internal Iraqi political process – even if it does not like who wins.

Peter Khalil, an Australian who is a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, was the director of national security policy for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq from August 2003 to May 2004.

[JR]

a "sham"

thats a bit narrow given there has never been an election in the area since the dawn of civilization and more voters turned out to vote than the average number of those in the so-called "worlds greatest democracy"

i would call their obvious willingness and desire to participate in democratic elections both encouraging and inspiring.

[Rolo]

The task ahead will not be taken lightly by anyone - no iraqi will benafit from a collapse - incl. sunnis.

So its good news that all important countries have accepted that the election was fair given the special circumstance Iraq is in, which will put even more pressure on those who wish to fight it

I would not be surprised, if some of the terrorists and their supports who have baathist background will give up their now hopeless fight in exchange for influence in the new iraq.

[dantheman]

ok kerry, oh I mean kenndy, no wait, nick, it's ok, there'll be other reasons to bash Bush and his folks in the next 4 years


I wish I could have been a fly on the wall in the kerry/kenndy camp, you know they were really wishing for some bigtime atacks and deaths to happen, and was thinking their might be a 10% voter count. I have lost what "little" repect I had for kerry over this weekend. I've seen so many accounts from Iraqis thanking US and our armed forces for making this happen. Most thought that a FREE election would NEVER happen in thier life. It did yesterday. Be happy for them, and Hope we can get most of our guys and gals home soon

Semper Fi

[PornoDoggy]

Dan ... upon what do you base your assumption that " they [Kennedy, Kerry, and I assume, other people who think like me] were really wishing for some bigtime atacks and deaths to happen"?

[JR]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jan 31 2005, 12:02 PM
Dan ... upon what do you base your assumption that " they [Kennedy, Kerry, and I assume, other people who think like me] were really wishing for some bigtime atacks and deaths to happen"?

there is no question that many Democrats in government are desperate for failure and bad news. there is no quote in existence that can show that Ted Kennedy is optimistic, supportive or simply even acknowledging any success in Iraq. I have seen a quite a few democrats that are clear about the fact that arguing about why we went in and the other issues are seperate. i have also seen the exact opposite in many where they have consistently had only negative things to say about any and every aspect of everything going on. one might argue that is not the same as "wishing for big time deaths" but i think it could be argued that there is not exactly a pattern of hope and making the best of the situation either.

i would think its quite obvious at this point that the world was lied to by the Bush Administration. the war was clearly not proven to be justified based on the often incoherent and wandering grounds that were cited. either that, or the worlds only super power has the worlds most ignorant and incompetent intelligence agencies and agents. however, the situation is what it is. an immediate pull out (as many dems constantly chant for) or constantly dwelling on the negatives seeking only to score political points at the expense of all those fighting for a positive change and the chance to improve their lives is borderline treason. it would be nice for once for someone like Ted Kennedy to simply say "Iraqis, i congratulate you"... and maybe mention 1 or 2 of the great successes that people are dying to achieve while he is stumbling around drunk and groping 18 year old bimbos at the family home by the beach.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by JR@Jan 31 2005, 03:17 PM
there is no question that many Democrats in government are desperate for failure and bad news. there is no quote in existence that can show that Ted Kennedy is optimistic, supportive or simply even acknowledging any success in Iraq. I have seen a quite a few democrats that are clear about the fact that arguing about why we went in and the other issues are seperate. i have also seen the exact opposite in many where they have consistently had only negative things to say about any and every aspect of everything going on. one might argue that is not the same as "wishing for big time deaths" but i think it could be argued that there is not exactly a pattern of hope and making the best of the situation either.

i would think its quite obvious at this point that the world was lied to by the Bush Administration. the war was clearly not proven to be justified based on the often incoherent and wandering grounds that were cited. either that, or the worlds only super power has the worlds most ignorant and incompetent intelligence agencies and agents. however, the situation is what it is. an immediate pull out (as many dems constantly chant for) or constantly dwelling on the negatives seeking only to score political points at the expense of all those fighting for a positive change and the chance to improve their lives is borderline treason. it would be nice for once for someone like Ted Kennedy to simply say "Iraqis, i congratulate you"... and maybe mention 1 or 2 of the great successes that people are dying to achieve while he is stumbling around drunk and groping 18 year old bimbos at the family home by the beach.

So .... let me see if I get this straight.

If I warn somebody that dumping a smoldering ashtray into a trashcan could start a fire, I WANT him to burn down his study?

[dantheman]

PD, IMHO they(you know who sound like brats that are very sore losers. I agree with JR, why can't kenndy(those like him) just say good job now let's work "togther" and get this done and done right.
IT really seems like they will BASH just to bash, I guess if you dont have a agenda for the next election bashing is all there is :/

[JR]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Jan 31 2005, 12:26 PM-->