The Lost Elections The Nation argues in its article href="http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050207&s=editors"> Iraq...
The Lost Elections
The Nation argues in its article
href="http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050207&s=editors">
Iraq's Lost Election that the elections in Iraq are a lost cause
because the
interim government and the United States have failed to provide adequate
security for the campaign and balloting to take place according to an accepted
standard.
As Dexter Filkins of the New York Times reported, rather than the normal
democratic ritual of voters and candidates, what Iraqis know is
"a campaign in
the shadows, where candidates are often too terrified to say their names.
Instead of holding rallies, they meet voters in secret, if they meet them at
all. Instead of canvassing for votes, they fend off death
threats." Filkins
further reported: "Of the 7,471 people who have filed to run,
only a handful
outside the relatively safe Kurdish areas have publicly identified
themselves.
The locations for the 5,776 polling places have not been announced, lest they
become targets for attacks."
As conditions deteriorated, it became harder for the Bush
Administration to
spin the upcoming poll to choose an Iraq National Assembly as a major step
toward restoring security. Gen. George Casey, commander of coalition
forces in
Iraq, predicted more violence on election day and "for some
time" thereafter,
while a new US intelligence estimate foresees the elections being followed by
more violence and possible civil war. ...
As long as the occupation continues, any Iraqi government or constitution
will be tainted and incapable of producing the compromises necessary for a
stable and unified Iraq. Therefore, for the sake of Iraq's future and the
safety of our young men and women, the United States must begin an orderly
withdrawal, coordinated with stepped-up US and international economic
assistance. We recognize that further violence and internal fighting among
Iraqis may follow, but to believe that a continuing US military presence can
prevent this is naïve or disingenuous; it will, rather, contribute to the
instability. The best long-term outcome is for Iraqis to regain control of
their own country and sort out their own future.
There are two parts to the Nation's indictment. The first is that the
elections will fail; and second, that even if elections formally take place a
civil war will follow. From these premises they conclude that the United
States should withdraw, but not before leaving a large chunk of money,
though to
whom is not explained; that civil war may follow anyway, yet somehow this civil
war will be less destructive than one they predict will follow the
elections and
therefore the lesser of evils.
A few loose ends might remain. For example, the Iraqis and Kurds who joined
the Iraq government interim forces under American tutelage may find themselves
hunted down by the 'insurgents' once US forces leave and become refugees. Who
should accept them? If a civil war ensues as the Nation admits is
possible, if Syria and Iran enter the lists of their
co-religionists, how
should America restrain them? Surely all-out conflict would be the time to heed
the Nation's advice "No more money for war!". And if
the Kurds were
subsequently attacked and massacred all over again; and the Marsh Arabs
slaughtered once more, without elections too, would there be enough days of
silence, enough bags of flour in the UN relief warehouses, enough editorial
handwringing to make it all up to them?
What then but to blame America for being the root cause of a tragic
conflict,
which was nevertheless the least evil of all remaining paths, once the
basic and
tragic mistake of invading Iraq was undertaken. Or is the Nation
referring to the wrong lost election?
COMMENTS