Iraqi Elections

[El Blanco]

The date is the 30th, right? That gives us about a week for doom and gloom predictions. Lets all call for the end of the world and then see what materializes.

Personally, I think the next seven days will show us some of the most desperate and viscious fighting most of us have ever witnessed.

Shit on the level of the Japanese after Midway and the Tet Offensive.

However, just like those two examples, the attacks will utlimatly be colossal failures. The elections will be held, leaders will be chosen, and Iraq can become its own country.

Will insurgents keeps fighting? Undoubtedly. Will it be anything like we've seen latly or will see for the next week? No.

As for the result of the elections: Some wil be elated, some will be pissed, but IRaq, and the world as a whole will probably accept the outcome and try and build from there.

[Immortal Goat]

My question is, what if they elect someone that Bush doesn't like? We just gonna bomb them again? We are not liked over there, and the chances of these elections being successful (at least in our favor) are slim to none. Iraq has always been, and will always be, a shithole.

[El Blanco]

It was a shithole when European Imperialism hit it. Even after that, it had a few good stretches.

What I never understood is why some intellectuals keep saying how since the Middle East has not had any real history in democracy, it can't be acheived, yet they keep drolling on about how we have to intervene and bring democracy to the old soviet republics.

You want to talk about a shithole, look at what some of those people have been through.

[mburbank]

There will be an election, if you can call one sided voting taking place in two thrids of the country with no way of monitoring and no way of verifying the count an election. There will be a result which we will, at least initially nto only back, but applaud. The violence, in my estimation will then turn from an 'insurgency' to a 'civil war'. It won't have to change in any way to do that, it will be a fact as soon as it's a war against a government, legitimate or not, instead of against an occupying force.

I'm curious to see what we do if whoever wins asks us to leave, either immediately or on a timetable. I don't thik that will happen, because I'm guessing we're going to be pretty heavily involved in collecting the votes and providing 'security' for the count.

My prediction? We'll get Ilawi entrenched. That should give us a good ten years before he fulfills the path most strongmen who we've given power to and he turns on us and we have to pretend we had nothing to do with his rise to power and invade the country. But this will at least free us up to invade Iran. Maybe by the tikme we need to overthrow Iraq again, we can have our installed striong man in Iran still only halfway to becoming our enemy.

[El Blanco]

There will be a result which we will, at least initially nto only back, but applaud. The violence, in my estimation will then turn from an 'insurgency' to a 'civil war'. It won't have to change in any way to do that, it will be a fact as soon as it's a war against a government, legitimate or not, instead of against an occupying force.

You don't go from insurgency to civil war. An isurgency is when outside forces come in to fight. These aren't Iraqis leading the charge.

I have no illusions about the time immediatly before and after the elctions. They will be bloodbaths. But, I see that burning itsel out.

The Iraqi people as a whole just won't go along with it. They have little reason ot believe that some asshole from Pakistan who is sending suicide bombers into mosques has more of their interests in mind than the Americans there fighting the insurgents.

[mburbank]

"These aren't Iraqis leading the charge"

That, my friend, is a seriously debated topic. Who they are and how many of them and why they're fighting is something that a lot of people have a lot of different ideas about.

And what about the Kurds, who may not like loosing autonomy after ten years? I don't think these folks are incapable of democracy inherently, but I'm not sure that's what anyone has in mind for them in any case.

I think if Sunnis have no way to vote and Shiites sweep the election, (which seems likely to me) it's going to be unlikely the Sunnis will say "Oh, well, it's all for the greater good of Iraq".

Maybe the shiites will work really hard to give the Sunnis a fair shake and find a way for the Kurds to be sort of autonomus. But so far they can't even get a police force together. My guess is Alawi is going to try to make what we did in Faluja look like a sunday school tea party, becaue that's traditionally how power has been solidified in Iraq.

I would really, really like for something good to come out of this. I'll just be hugely surprised.

[Anonymous]

I think the elections will go over without a hitch. Totally.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Immortal Goat

My question is, what if they elect someone that Bush doesn't like? We just gonna bomb them again?

To my understanding, they will be electing regional members of parliament. If I'm right, that should mean the PM will get elected from within the newly elected parliament, unless the interim government stipulated somewhere that the PM would be directly elected by the people.

Since the votes are across, Iraq, there will undoubtedly be folks elected who we hate, those we like, and those whom we fear even holding such power. IMO, that's what it's all about, and it's that kind of diversity in thoughts and approaches that Iraq finally needs in order to thrive.

[GAsux]

Good job Kev. They're actually electing a 300+ member body. So in a way, it's possible for everyone to win without anything actually being accomplished.


Rather than having regional tribal control throughout the country, you'll have elected regional tribal control, centered in Baghdad. For those already oppossed, they will continue to view the elections as nothing more than a fraud perpetrated upon them by America. Which in all fairness it really is. Kind of ironic that our version of "freedom" means them accepting the political process we think they should have eh?

The Admin will hail it as a huge success, citing the fact that Iraqis have more freedom than ever, because now they can "choose" the people who run their neighborhoods. I anticipate the level of violence to stay the same. While the pace has certianly increased, the scale has stayed relatively the same. There have been no catastrophic attacks to this point.

The "insurgents", be they disaffected Iraqis or angry non_Iraqi Arabs fighting for their cause will continue to attempt to destabilize the civil functions of the country. No paper parliament with "elected" officials is going to stop them.

[davinxtk]

Originally Posted by Immortal Goat

Iraq has always been, and will always be, a shithole.

What the fuck.
You really don't know much about Iraq pre-war, do you?

This place wasn't Afghanistan. It didn't look freshly fucking shelled out and destroyed before we shelled and destroyed it. Saddam may have been a complete piece of shit politically, but economically he knew what he was doing. Baghdad was a thriving metropolis; Fallujah, while it was never the best neighborhood, wasn't the hotbed of insurgent activity it turned into.

This wasn't a desert country that had been raped by the Soviets and completely pummelled into the stone age on their way out.
This was a sovereign nation with an economy and laws.



Whatever 'shithole' it is now, we did to it.

[Immortal Goat]

Yes, it was a thriving city, that wasn't the kind of shithole I was talking about. Before, it was a shithole in that it was an opressive government. Now, it is a shithole in that we bombed it and it has no government at all.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I think it might be more important to note that the Iraqi people just might have the power to decide the fate of their "shithole." Whatever we did to them can be rebuilt and improved upon, whether or not they're Kurds, Shia, or Sunni. That may not have been the case were Saddam still there.....

[davinxtk]

Any way you cut the shit-hole to look at it, I certainly hope this is the outcome:

Originally Posted by GAsux

Good job Kev. They're actually electing a 300+ member body. So in a way, it's possible for everyone to win without anything actually being accomplished.

[Dole]

Its not much of an election when candidates are unable to campaign or publicise themselves at all for fear of getting killed, voters are afraid to vote for fear of violent reprisals, and most of the eligible voting public are completely unaware who the candidates actually are.

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by GAsux

Good job Kev. They're actually electing a 300+ member body. So in a way, it's possible for everyone to win without anything actually being accomplished.

Not to be cynical, but isn't that just about every democratically elected government?

[mburbank]

The thing I like the best is that in many cases, the names of the candidates remain a closely guarded secret. How the hell do you decide to vote for someone if you don't know who they are?

[El Blanco]

Is the party known? Mabye you vote for the party and not the candidate. Not much better, but it isn't totally blind.

[mburbank]

I think the parties are known, and that a couple of days before the election they're posting names, but they are a LOT of parties and I don't know how well they are known.

The main reason the various parties and what they represent hasn't been covered in the media is unless something is happening in the green zone it's pretty much unsafe to cover.

is the 'international zone' the same as the 'green zone'? Cause I heard that's where the votes will be transported for tabulation.

[Dole]

Exhaustive article on who is running, who is boycotting the elections:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4051977.stm

[mburbank]

Thank you, sir. That was about as informative as I've been able to find.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

Not to be cynical, but isn't that just about every democratically elected government?

Yes, and maybe I'm wrong, but I think GAsux was referring to that as a good thing. Everybody from every party and of every ideology can win and go home happy, but nobody gets put in front of firing squads the next day, or nobody feels compelled to emigrate somewhere else due to the results (we hope).

I think the argument that this isn't a truly free election because people are scared, yada yada, is a bit overstated. Of course they're scared. These "insurgents" publicly executed two election workers in the middle of the street a few weeks ago. People SHOULD be scared.

But that doesn't mean the vote shouldn't happen, and it also doesn't mean people aren't campaigning. I mean, let's be honest, at this point in the game, you can probably look at the regions, observe who's running, and call who's gonna win. That's fine. It's called a party machine, and our country functioned that way for the better part of the 20th Century.

Nothing will be perfect, nothing will go smoothly, and there will most certainly be something to critique the next day. But hopefully, this will be a HUGE step forward towards whatever the right direction may be for Iraqis. And also hopefully, maybe for the first time, it'll be them who decides that course, rather than the British, or the French, or the U.S., or some Arab monarchy, or another Saddam Hussein.

And hopefully, one day, we can go to war with the democratic republic of Iraq.

[Abcdxxxx]

Pre-baathist Iraq was hardly even close to being a shithole.

[Ant10708]

Apparently today the Iraqi newspapers finally revealed the names of all particpants. So we should be able to expect some assassinations of like the 700 people running

[Dole]

But that doesn't mean the vote shouldn't happen, and it also doesn't mean people aren't campaigning. I mean, let's be honest, at this point in the game, you can probably look at the regions, observe who's running, and call who's gonna win. That's fine. It's called a party machine, and our country functioned that way for the better part of the 20th Century.

That sounds a touch optimistic Kev

[mburbank]

I actually just barely do support these elections, because I think it's the only way we'll ever have a shot at getting out of there, and I think us getting out of there is the only hope they have of ever being able to form a legitimate government.

But, I don't think this is going to be about them choosing anything. No monitors, no voting in areas not controlled by US forces, votes to be counted under our protection and by people we picked...

If there's any outcome where a bunch of people who aren't our puppets and who didn't 'used' to be on the CIAS payroll (We do all know that Allawi worked for the CIA for years, yes?) come out on top I will be very, very, very plesantly surprised.

You know how we'll know if they elections are legitimate? If the winners form a coalition just long enough to ask us to get out. Because taht is the only way I can think of for whichever multiple parties win to establish any kind of legitimacy. Who in Iraq or the region will believe their officials are NOT American puppets if they don't ask us to leave?