Allawi Says January 30 Elections Are A Go

This could be like in baseball, when the owner gives a manager the "vote of confidence" just before he fires him, but Allawi says it's a go.

Under pressure from insurgents and rivals in his own government, Iraq's interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi, reaffirmed his commitment today to holding nationwide elections on Jan. 30. He spoke on a day that suicide bombers killed at least 17 Iraqis, most of them police officers, in three separate attacks. Mr. Allawi, at a news conference, tried to reassure Iraqis that the elections could still go forward despite an onslaught of insurgent violence aimed at crushing prospects for a legitimate democratic vote. The prime minister also sought to quash calls by members of his own government that the vote be delayed until the violence was brought under control.

"The government is committed to holding the elections on schedule," Mr. Allawi said. "We know some Iraqis fear voting, but we have to overcome those fears." Mr. Allawi spoke two days after an anxious phone call to President Bush, in which the prime minister expressed his worries that the murderous campaign by the insurgents was undermining the likelihood of a peaceful and widely respected vote. President Bush has said publicly that he is opposed to putting off the election, and his aides said he urged Mr. Allawi to hold fast.

Everything else aside, how can they possbly do it? What am I missing? Sure, a Republican will tell you that on a given day, 85 or 90% of Iraq is peaceful. The problem is that 10 or 15 percent changes daily. Not to mention the fact that the Sunnis are not participating. Bush is stubbornly stupid so one supposes something will happen on January 30, but a respected election is likely not one of them.

•  What you say is true,

  but it is also very unlikely that the violence will ever be brought under control as long as we keep the status quo.  Just as well have the election now as a year from now, because the current situation is intolerable and must change... either to some sort of (very imperfectly) elected group or to a dictator.

  I was against going in the first place, as much of this was predictable.  But here we are.  It will be interesting to see what kind of turnout they get.

  BTW - when they say 85 to 90% of the country is safe on any given day, do they mean 85 - 90% of the land mass or the people?  Because it seems like the most populous cities have violence every day.

  by Anaxamander on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:45:08 PM PDT

  •  Iraqi elections

    are like Stalinist show trials, justice doesn't matter when it's theater you're after, and theater is what this Iraq war has been about from the very beginning. Who wins, who runs makes no difference, we're doing this so that RW radio talk show hosts can pronounce our victory and validate our war crimes.

    by doorguy on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:01:36 PM PDT

    •  tank free elections

      
      will it take piles and piles of one sided evidence to convince y'all that the iraqi elections are a fraud?

      it bothers me seeing a police officer at the table when i vote. it never was like that when i was young in ohio.

      who here would vote if there were tanks outside the polling place? (not me)!

      by common terry on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:10:18 PM PDT

      •  Tanks

        Tanks outside the polling place would be the best reason for voting.  Turning your back on Democracy is not the way to fix it.
        

        by Ageredon on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:57:05 PM PDT

    •  Doorguy: Best analysis I've seen in a while.

      The entire war was dreamed up as a way to ensure GWB's re-election and the solidification of Republican control of power.  Maybe it'll work maybe it won't. As long as the Iraqis are under control and as long as the American public is under control the plan is working.

      by McAdder on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:51:27 PM PDT

    •  Remind me again

      just who is in charge of Iraq?  Allawi floats the idea of moving the elections, Bush opposes.  Lo and behold, no postponement.

      by Unstable Isotope on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 06:27:49 PM PDT

  •  Read this post

    at TAPPED. It shows why a bad election is not any better, and may be worse, than no election. But the funny part is that the administration is using this example, Algria in the 90's, of how an election can be held during a war.

    ...The backstory here is that the Algerian government canceled elections in 1992 when it appeared that the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS, based on its French acronym) was poised to win, setting off a bloody civil war. In the midst of this violence, Algeria did, in fact, hold a 1997 presidential election that was successful in logistical terms, with no attacks on polling places and a decent turnout. Since the opposition FIS had been banned, pro-government parties won handily. Today, Algeria's president is Abdelaziz Bouteflika, who won in 1999 after all other candidates dropped out to protest fraud. In 2004 he was re-elected with a stunning 83.5 percent of the vote amid -- shockingly -- allegations of fraud.

    Today, the State Department regards the Algerian government's human rights record as "poor," due to arbitrary detentions, torture, extrajudicial killings, and restrictions on "freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, and movement." Perhaps more to the point, the resumption of elections hasn't yet brought the government success in its now 12-year-old counterinsurgency campaign. "Press reports estimated that approximately 1,162 civilians, terrorists, and security force members died during the year, a 61 percent decrease in violent deaths from 2002."

    Read the whole thing. I'd say it's shocking but shock went the way of outrage with this administration.

    by Mike S on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:04:56 PM PDT

  •  Land mass

    Lots and lots and lots of peaceful lightly populated deserts (often guarded by tons of mercs guarding the pipelines). And some very messy cities.

    Basra, though, seems to be fairly peaceful. Those Brits--they're experts at occupation, you know.

    by emptywheel on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:26:47 PM PDT

    •  Another voodoo metric

      But they have another very tricky metric: number of attacks daily. "The number of attacks has been going down, so we know things are getting better in Iraq," I heard the nice spokesman say today.

      "You idiot!! Have you noticed the attacks are getting bigger and more effective? Have you noticed that the attacks are coming in the Green Zone and our bases.

      Things are getting better, indeed.

      by emptywheel on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:29:47 PM PDT

  •  Yes, they count the boondocks

    in that bullshit, Rumsfeldized 85-90% number. 15 out of 18 provinces are relatively peaceful, but their population centers are a mess.

    As for the elections: good luck with that.

    by Ascendent on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:26:59 PM PDT

  •  the choice is either

    have elections as a prelude to a civil war or not have elections and have a civil war . if iraq has elections they will get a government aligned with iran but bush will have a chance to declare victory and get the military out of the line of fire . if we don't have elections we will continue to be in the middle of an untenable situation .

    the elections are a PR move but they give dubya  the opportunity to retreat . will he take it ?

    by shel on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 07:17:57 PM PDT

•  Let me get this straight...

  -Hundreds of elections workers have resigned because they don't want to take a bullet for this.

  -The candidates themselves can't/aren't getting their names "out there" because they're afraid of being assassinated.

  Sounds like a mess to me.

  by grannyhelen on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:49:22 PM PDT

  •  "Campaign" poster =

    "Wanted - dead or alive" poster

    by God loves goats on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:07:05 PM PDT

  •  Fig leaf for withdrawal?

    It is clear that the situation in iraq is not getting any better.  Most of the attack victims are police officers and gov't people, so the ability to maintain order is going down.  How can they hold an election with no poll workers?  Anyone stting in a poll is a sitting duck.  if 20 polling places are blown up early in the morning, how does the election continue?

    The election is just a fig leaf, but for what?  For the inevitable transfer of power to Sistani, SCIRI and DAWA, as Kaleidoscope suggested?  For us declaring victory and starting a withdrawal, as I have suggested?  For just staying the wrong course so we will all find out where it really does lead?

    Bush is going to have trouble on Social Security, as is already clear.  He will have trouble with his own party on immigration. The caboinet and courts are not going to be a pushover.  Tax policy is a minefield, given the deficit.  How long can Bush continue to spend $6 billion and fifty to a hundred lives a month on Iraq?

    by Mimikatz on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:11:03 PM PDT

•  Maybe

  just like changing the date for the handover of power to Alawi.  

  Hold them a week earlier that way they can't be interupt them.

  Hell nobody knows who the candiates are, where the polling places are, so a date change shouldn't make that much difference!

  by pessullivan on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:49:32 PM PDT

  •  Power

    The only power the US has to hand over is US military power and we can barely defend cafeterias from attack, let alone impose order on the Arab streets. We control no ground in Iraq. The Green Zone isn't safe. What power is that?

    The two options on the menu are Vietnam '66 or Vietnam '73 - the only difference for the United States is the number of dead and cost in dollars. For Iraq the result will eventually be the same - a Shia theocratic state more allied with Iran than the US and a less stable region. Sunnis in Iraq will be a violent oppressed minority instead of the violent oppressive minority they used to be. C'est la vie. The dream of US bases and control of oil supplies is dead, BushCo. just doesn't know it yet.

    by joejoejoe on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:31:38 PM PDT

  •  What about holding the elections secretly,

    with nobody being told about them until after they're over?

    That way, security can be airtight.

    by lysias on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:43:48 PM PDT

    •  Then

      the insurgency will magicly disappear!

      by Unstable Isotope on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 06:32:03 PM PDT

•  Something will happen Jan 30...

  And it will probably involve a lot of high explosives that Rummy allowed to go missing from Al Qaqa. The election will occur, but a blood bath will begin that will echo for months.

  by Anonymous on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:50:37 PM PDT

  •  whatever happened to al qaqa anyway?

    I was just wondering that today. did 385000 or whatever pounds of high explosive suddenly become unimportant after the election? Haven't there been quite a few high casualty bombings lately?

    I honestly feel like I'm in the twilight zone sometimes, things just do not make sense to me the way they used to. Is that because I'm 27 and understanding more about how the world works or has the world really changed a lot in the last six years?

    by Lud on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:16:50 PM PDT

    •  The GOP effectively

      labeled that a "political" event in the election so the media doesn't want to cover it any more.

      by Mike S on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:23:19 PM PDT

    •  Twilight zone

      Well, we've moved out of the inconvenient reality based world, if that's what you're talking about. Used to be presidents cared greatly about reality. But no more.

      by emptywheel on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:31:06 PM PDT

      •  I have a theory

        we ARE living in the twilight zone, at least philosophically.

        We live in an age and a world where Americans have actually been able to move beyond reality, at least to the extent that reality affects them so little that they do not have to engage with it at all in order to live their everyday lives in relative comfort, except for daily banalities like driving to work and doing the groceries.

        War in Iraq, kids dying, put a little ribbon STICKER on your fucking SUV and it all goes away. Broke? get a(nother) credit card, just fill out one of the seventeen applications that came in the mail today. Hungry? Heh, just kidding.

        What will it take to shock them out of this? A total economic collapse? A nuclear terrorist attack? A world war? Am I pessimistic?

        by Lud on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:53:03 PM PDT

        •  Not at all

          As more and more people get to know people who have lost their house to foreclosure, as people can no longer afford the food they love, and as they have to start choosing to car pool, they might think.

          Actually, I've seen Americans close to that shock level once. It was a July 4 weekend, and I was driving west on 76 out of Pennsy. There was a 2 hour backup at the border, at the toll booths. We had just played in an ultimate tournie so were incredibly hungry and thought we were very clever to have waited until the second service center inside of OH. But even there, there was a 45 minute wait at the Mickey-D's. I was in the middle of SF's Rodney King riots, and I've got to tell you, the fury of people responding to racial injustice has nothing on the fury I saw that day. (Mostly, it was that the people in the SF riot were kind and pleasant--those Mickey-D mobsters acted like they'd seen their families get shot.)

          Make people wait for their Mickey-D's. Tell them the McSundaes have run out. Then you will see Americans shocked out of their unreality.

          by emptywheel on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:58:55 PM PDT

•  This is ridiculous

  Remember last July when the "power" was finally turned over from the provisional authority to the Iraqis? Paul Bremer finally bailed, the media practically said "It's all over" and Bush cried to the heavens that it was a great day for democracy.

  Then the bottom fell out. Again.

  What we're seeing here is the same exact thing we saw when Bush declared Mission Accomplished, then again in July: media blitz, increasing violence, the big payoff day finally comes and...nothing. Things continue to get worse and everyone spends about two weeks wondering what happened.

  The country is not ready for an election, simple as that. Democracy is a (pardon the fancy language) delicate tapestry that takes generations to fulfill, it won't happen because there's been one election. It requires years of democratic action, elections, a civil society (which Iraq does have, contrary to what we see on the news every night, though it is stunted), pluralism not tribalism, religious freedom (which some parts certainly don't have), and most of all, democracies everywhere can't function with a civil war going on in their own country.
  

  by Antioch on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:52:23 PM PDT

•  Bush

  has painted himself into a box.  The Shi'ites are peaceful solely because we're having elections.  al-Sistani has said it is a religious duty to vote.  If there are no elections it's doubtful they will remain peaceful.  I doubt even the Kurds would remain peaceful.  Sound familiar?  W=LBJ

  The Kurds and the Shi'ites believe that Jan 30 brings them to the brink of an American withdrawl.  They'll be disappointed.

  The struggle for Iraq now is between Tehran, Washington and al-Queda.  Tehran is winning.  The Shi'ites will assume power and they will institute a theocracy.  There will be a civil war.  We've indeed broken it.  

  It's busted.

  A Liberal Primal Screen
  

  by erickh on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:52:30 PM PDT

  •  But we can still get our troops out safely,

    if we strike a deal with Iran.

    by lysias on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:45:41 PM PDT

  •  Shi'a biggest group

    Aren't the Shi'ites the biggest ethnic group in Iraq?  Isn't a lot of the Sunni resistance because they are a minority group that was in power under Saddam and now are facing the real prospect of being (a) out of power and (b) subject to control by the other two ethnic groups they've spent decades pushing around?

    I think the Bush administration is a bunch of sucktards as the next person, but some what is going on in Iraq is independent of what BushCo does.  Its in the Sunnis self-interest to throw as many wrenches into the works as possible in order to accrue as much disproportionate power to themselves as possible.

    by goblue72 on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:10:24 PM PDT

  •  Juan Cole

    Offers a link to this article:

    http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/10565145.htm?1c

    Sistani may not be a bad guy to run Iraq. bin Laden hates Sistani (Shia are apostates) and Sistani won't play ball as a BushCo puppet.

    Sistani as primary power broker in Iraq is not a bad end-state.

    by BlueSpace on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:14:49 PM PDT

    •  Wrong link

      But both are interesting:

      http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=11485

      by BlueSpace on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:27:04 PM PDT

  •  5 way battle

    U.S., Iran, Al-Qaeda, AND the Kurds and the old Saddam regime.
    
    Tehran is doing quite well working through the Shi'a parties in Iraq (IIRC, Sistani grew up in Iran and SCIRI was an Iranian backed organization during the Saddam days). But their strategy depends on the Shi'a winning the election and pushing the U.S. out. The new National Assembly has to be both theirs in terms of seats and a functioning entity for them to win.
    
    Al-Qaeda and its affiliates are making the biggest splash as insurgents because they supply most of the suicide bombers and the foreign fighters. They are also the ones most likely trying to spark a civil war with the Shi'as with bombings in Najaf and Karbala.
    
    However, the Al-Qaeda crew are probably tactically allied with the former Saddam loyalists. The Saddam crowd is more likely to carry out a lot of the garden variety killing, sabotage, and assassination to undermine the new government. I have head that the Saddam loyalists (including Ba'ath party types openly running in the elections) are reminding both Sunnis and Shi'as that under the old dictatorship they had a unified and secular nation and a government that delivered services (in between the torture and killings). These guys want to bring Saddam back.
    
    The Kurds are mostly looking to protect the independence that they've had for the last 14 years.

    by Hoya90 on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 04:25:08 PM PDT

•  It only needs to be respected by the media

  And then the VRWC will believe, everyone bu the natterin nabobs of negaivism will clap their hands, and tinkerbell will fly again.

  by anonymous coward 8 on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:53:26 PM PDT

  •  heh heh

    justifying my possession of a Spiro Agnew wristwatch...

    by Lud on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:19:42 PM PDT

•  and so it continues

  the deceptions meet the reality. The Sunni's will boycott and the turnout will be pathetic, but it will be done. Then we can wash our hands and walk away from the chaos that will surely ensue.
  

  by Lahdee on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:54:05 PM PDT

•  Silly Liberals

  The "votes" are already counted and Allawi won.  They just need Januray 30th to roll around so they can give their count some legitimacy.

  by egarratt on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:56:19 PM PDT

  •  WAIT , WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE!

    if you dont get caught it aint cheating
    ------

    Rich men rule earth.
    Democracy is a lie.

    Free to exploit the poor and destroy the earth market.
    

    by common terry on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:22:06 PM PDT

    •  So very off-pissing.

      Why should anyone in Iraq respect anything the Americans create over there? We seem to have a singular talent for forcing the Arab world to do things that go directly against their culture.

      I'll be as glad as anyone else in the world if this somehow works itself out. But I don't think there's a chance in hell of that happening.

      by Vestal Vespa on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:28:41 PM PDT

  •  If Allawi "wins" . . .

    . . . I predict a huge Shia uprising in February.

    by BlueSpace on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:17:38 PM PDT

•  When the ballots are distributed...

  will they become a hit-list for assassination?  Will the US guarantee their safety, like they did the Mayor of Baghdad?  Or will W. say, "let freedom reign" or some such BS that translates to "OK, we're done here, look out for yourselves."

  by Swoosh on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:57:35 PM PDT

•  fake ballots

  They have to have the election on jan.30 that's the date on the fake ballots an it's also the date the rigged computers have to spit out the "winners names" that the "people of Iraq"voted for. So if the date of the election is changed bush&co.will have to dump all those crooked votes down the drain.

  by defluxion10 on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:58:11 PM PDT

  •  Or they haven't been able

    to nail down how many ballot boxes they can stuff with absentee ballots from Iraqi expats.

    Yahoo

    by Marie on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:42:04 PM PDT

•  GOTV

  This is GOTV in hell.

  (and I don't mean our beloved GOTV kossack).
  

  by Carnacki on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:58:39 PM PDT

•  Whatever happens

  I'll demand... DEMAND a recount. Since when does Bush give a flying fuck about a "respected election" anyway? I think you're missing the point, Big Dog.

  by seethru jesus on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM PDT

  •  rabble rouser : )

    by mcjoan on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:05:10 PM PDT

•  Headline is Wrong

  It says it's a "go".  I think the translator got it wrong.  It should be it's a "joke."  

  by norm on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:59:25 PM PDT

•  January 30th

  Also known as Hot Potato Day.

  by seethru jesus on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:00:03 PM PDT

•  Doesn't Matter...

  ...Diebold has already decided that Allawi has won the Iraq General Election with 55% of the vote and will be the Next Iraqi President.

  Now watch this drive!

  by Blue Shark on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:00:15 PM PDT

  •  How many candidates?

    Well I know there are a LOT of candidates running, so someone could win with 10% of the vote.

    Just remember our first puppet for there was supposed to be the Iranian Spy, Ahkmed Chalabi.

    Also, isn't the "president" of afganistan another former oilman and US-appointed puppet, or did he win a truely free election?!/

    by georgeNOTw on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:08:17 PM PDT

    •  McDermott on Karzai and Unical

      
      http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/sp040225a.shtml

      ...
      They took us to war, at least in part, on the basis of oil and the United States wanting to control oil. All we have to do is look at the machinations of Unical bringing a pipeline down through Afghanistan and then putting Hamid Karzai as the President who was, imagine that, an old Unical guy. He made $600,000 off Unical...
      

      by common terry on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:28:35 PM PDT

•  Whatever....still, why in Hell

  aren't they voting by mail???

  by oldpro on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:04:55 PM PDT

•  Overcome the fears?

  That statement would be laughable except for all the death and dying... Bush however, is the epitome of absurdity.

  by crkrjx on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:06:56 PM PDT

•  Baseball? hmmmmmmmmm

  Maybe Allawi can call a 'Let Freedom Reign"delay

  by ctkeith on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:08:18 PM PDT

  •  Thanks Armondo

    its no fun when the only one you slay is yourself.

    by ctkeith on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:48:10 PM PDT

•  85-90% Quiet?

  Yeah, in the middle of the desert, where nobody lives.  Every place else, it's a charnel house.

  This is like those maps showing how the overwhelming majority of the US land mass is Bush Country.  Trouble is, those vast expanses are largely devoid of people.  All that proves is he's big with rocks and gila monsters.

  "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

  by JJB on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:11:12 PM PDT

  •  good point

    One more reason to rescind the Great Compromise.

    by Lud on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:22:05 PM PDT

  •  Rocks maybe. Gila monsters? I doubt it.

    Bush does wear scales, but that doesn't make him their friend.

    35,000 Americans to guard the still-secret voting locations? Are they going to frisk everybody for C4 before letting them cast their ballots? Will the lines be longer than Ohio's? What hath Rummy wrought?

    by Meteor Blades on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:48:15 PM PDT

•  The election should go forward

  We'll never get out of there if we don't have somebody to turn the place over to.

  by walden on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:11:51 PM PDT

  •  Not only

    that but the insurgents need a semi-legitimate government to over throw.

    by pessullivan on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:17:14 PM PDT

•  the truth is

  we're f*cked.  Iraqis are f*cked.  Everyone is f*cked.

  Delay elections = insurgents win and chaos reigns
  Have elections on the 30th: vote invalid = insurgents win and chaos reigns

  THERE IS NO CHOICE WHICH INVOLVES QUELLING THE INSURGENCY!  We physically can not do it, unless we want to inihilate everyone.  (Freepers)

  I'm now convinced the only thing to do is for us to leave NOW.  Our presence is the main force that gives the insurgents any legitimacy with the populace.  

  If we are not there, Iraqis will end up sorting things out, though certainly it will be regrettably violent.  Yet things are both intolerably violent right now AND there is no progress towards sorting things out.  This could go on for years or decades in this state.

  We must leave.  We must leave now.  Lives will be saved all around in the long run.  I believe this now, though I used to be of the Powell viewpoint of you break it you own it.

  by Sue in NH on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:12:07 PM PDT

  •  Most likely

    Most likely way to quell the insurgency is to have Sistani's list win, have him kick out the evil American aggressors, and then have Iran come into put down the insurgency.

    Of course, we'd still be f*cked. And the Sunnis and Kurds, not so good. But the Russians, the Chinese, even Old Europe--they'd be peachy. The US goes to war to wrap up its competitive advantage in petroleum for all time ... and every competitor (well, maybe not Japan, or Poland) ends up with better access to oil.

    I tell you, those Persians will get their revenge for 1953 yet.

    by emptywheel on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:36:26 PM PDT

    •  Ironic, isn't it?

      I believe Sistani would cut a deal with the Kurds and give them Kirkuk. After all the Sunni Baath under Saddam did run roughshod over both the Shia and the Kurds.

      The Iraqi Sunni? Potential al Qaeda. Everyone one of them. But that became inevitable once we levelled Fallajuh.

      by BlueSpace on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:21:42 PM PDT

  •  kill all the arabs, there will be no arab terror

    it is true.

    alot of people in the USA are for genocide.

    its american tradition. we have genocidal maniacs on our money.

    what does carter say these days about east timor?

    by common terry on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:37:34 PM PDT

•  Just like Vietnam

  Everything is going great, the Communists insurgents are clearly getting desperate, as demonstrated by their increasingly successful attacks.

  The Vietnamization Iraquification of the security forces is going great.

  We are about to turn the corner.  There is light at the end of the tunnel.  We are bringing Democracy to Southeast Asia the Middle East.

  Remember, everything is going great.  We can't leave now.  We've got to finish the job.  We can't cut and run.  A few hundred thousand more troops is all we need to win this one big.

  by baked potato on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:15:17 PM PDT

  •  maybe worse?

    We stay in and support a government seen as illegitimate (RSVN) and the insurgency continues. We leave and the Shi'ites go ballistic, not to mention the second time we've handed it in a bag to the Kurds.  What I see as different this time around, is that in Viet Nam there were two definite sides, or at least two that could be generalized as: Nationalist and Colonialist. This time we have more players in the game than a twenty-four hour softball tournament.  

    But, Bush isn't about to listen to experts; those pointy head folks who document global warming, environmental disasters in the making, economic and tax policy problems, and especially those folks who compiled 16 volumes of reference material on what it would take to be successful in Iraq.

    It appears to be all about politics and power; God Forbid we'd listen to scientists, political and otherwise.

    by greatbasin2 on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:27:33 PM PDT

  •  The election will be like Tet

    They're getting ready and they will come with everything they've got to both hit the U.S. AND disrupt the elections.
    
    The Green Zone has had something like 4 attacks on its gates in the last week. Look for them to go all out to breach the wall and run amok.

    by Hoya90 on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 04:32:14 PM PDT

•  Hell, if I were Allawi

  I'd want somebody else's name at the top of the ticket, and elected to serve instead of me, YESTERDAY.

  by sheba on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:16:35 PM PDT

•  No worries

  We're deploying 35k troops in Baghdad, so everything will be fine!

  PS--Yeah, 85% of Iraq is peaceful.  Aren't those the parts that are desert?

  by NTodd on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:20:33 PM PDT

•  statistics

  I think pragmatics wins and that requires information we don't have.  How many polling places will be safe enough?  It looks like "not enough" will bel... but this is a matter for real facts.

  In general... I think going forward with a flawed election is preferable that just not having a democratic election at all... and leaving Allawi in control unelected.

  by pyrrho on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:20:42 PM PDT

•  The concept of

  a "legitimate election" is unimportant to Bush, he only wants an election.  The distinction is lost on him and his ilk, and they are the ones who believe that legitimacy can be produced after the fact, if need be.  

  by a gilas girl on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:24:20 PM PDT

•  I want them to hold the "election"

  The sooner we, I mean they, "elect" a government, the sooner the government can ask us to leave. Like Br'er Rabbit we beg them not to throw us out of the country. But they insist.
  Damn. I guess we got no choice. Our work here is done. Seeya, wouldn't wanta beeya.

  by muledriver on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:27:36 PM PDT

•  They will hold the elections

  There's really no choice. Until they do there's no real hope of getting out of there. The elections will do what the handover did--make Iraq recede further from the front pages so that the US can start getting out while no-one is looking.

  What's really going to be interesting is how this whole fiasco will be respun as a great victory after it's all over. We'll blame the Iraqis for screwing up the democracy we gave them.

  by morielly on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:33:09 PM PDT

•  What is an election?

  If you want to get depressed, ask 100 Americans what one is.  Anyway, yes, elections are the codified mechanism for choosing/selecting certain officials in government.

  But it's so much more than that.  Elections bare the actual mechanics of voting and counting for all to see.  They can be difficult to set up (not very, really) and tempt all sorts of mishchief.

  Elections create losers, which nobody seems to mention.  If it's not fair and the losers are used to dying and fighting it will make the violence worse, not better.

  Most of all elections greatly magnify all the political energies and conflicts into a vortex surrounding one date.  If things are not put well together beforehand this power has the potential to blow things apart.

  It's a good diary subject and I've been meaning to write it for weeks, but it gets me so depressed I just can't do it.  The utter stupidity of the whole venture still boggles my mind, and it's just incredible that after all this time George Bush would be so stupid as to hold an election at this time.

  It's highly possible the election date will be remembered as the day Iraq Went Officially To Hell, and there will never be any going back to any kind of sane existence.

  There is no way to fix it.  The election will just make things very much worse, and our men will contiunue to die and be horribly maimed, when they're not doing stuff like this:  

  

  Our men got jumpy after an attack and shot up this family's car.  This kid's parents and sister were shot dead in front of him.  They had done absulutely nothing to us.  NOTHING!!!

  I feel so bad for that boy I want to adopt him.  Anything to stop the horror his life has become.  That fucking idiot George Bush--this kid will not forget, and if I was him I'd become a "terrorist" to get rid of the lying killers who did this to him.

  How long will the horror and total flaming stupidity go on?  Jesus, when will we finally admit total failure and stop killing?

  by paradox on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:35:57 PM PDT

  •  sadly

    paradox knows

    by moeman on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:40:40 PM PDT

  •  Okay...

    March 17th, 2052, 2:16 in the afternoon.

    by seethru jesus on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:42:04 PM PDT

  •  Iraqi elections and SOTU

    Isn't the STate of the Union address on Jan 31 this year?  The Iraqi elections were supposed to usher in Bush's triumph.  Instead, it will be carnage.  I think this is right--the day Iraq goes to hell.

    by Mimikatz on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:25:35 PM PDT

  •  Power to the People...

    I don't think it will end until we take to the streets in numbers that can't be ignored.

    by Quan Shi Yin on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:29:12 PM PDT

•  This is all going according to plan...

  Look, I said it a year and a half ago... don't argue with jesus, I said it first!

  We go in, topple the cretin, snatch what we can, prop up some sock puppet fuckhead long enough to have a phony election, and blame the ensuing catastrophe on whoever the Iraqis "chose to lead them."

  This is made all the more BEAUTIFUL by the fact that we've already said we'd "leave" if they asked us to.

  What's not to like?

  by seethru jesus on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:46:24 PM PDT

  •  Problem is that

    is not in the BushCo gameplan.  They have no intention of leaving those oil fields to the Iraqis or leaving Iraq as long as there is any chance that non-US-friendly Muslim theocracy is possible.  This whole thing was never about WMD or Saddam -- it was about exerting US control over the region.  And now BushCo has four years to exert it and nothing in this country is going to stop them from doing whatever they deem necessary.

    by Marie on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:39:21 PM PDT

    •  Military Defeat?

      And now BushCo has four years to exert it and nothing in this country is going to stop them from doing whatever they deem necessary.

      Maybe nothing in this country, but what about military defeat in Iraq?

      by lysias on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:48:32 PM PDT

      •  How would that be measured?

        Half this country still doesn't believe the US was defeated in Vietnam, one reason the debate on that immoral war remains so alive today.  The US has a huge arsenal that will continue to be used whenever they need to claim another "victory."  They would prefer not to level the whole country, but will do so if needed.

        by Marie on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:00:42 PM PDT

    •  Hence...

      Which is why "leave" is in qualifying cyniquotes. I agree that none of those things are why we went there in the first place. But, I think we can, and may, make it look as though we've "left" while we stay there and pull the strings that need to be pulled. Maybe we could put up a "Mission Accomplished" banner once the elections are held.

      by seethru jesus on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:56:27 PM PDT

      •  Doubt that the Iraqis

        and others in the ME are lame enough to fall for that ploy.  They haven't so far and BushCo has been trying this ever since they flew that "Mission Accomplished" banner.

        by Marie on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:03:46 PM PDT

•  What is the time differential

  between the actual invasion to invade Iraq and the decision made to have the elections. I'll bet it took some time for Bush to get to that next thought.

  by Sprinkles on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:05:42 PM PDT

•  "Respected" elections

  Last night on MacNeal-Lehrer Report, the three guests all agreed it was a fluster-cluck, two of them a total wpie-out but the third took a line I suspect is the Rummy/Bush Junior/Colonial Office wishful-thinking take.

  It's this
  Well, it's an election that starts with what we can start with, and it gives some bits of legitimacy to the government that will get the counted votes.

  They can use this as a foundation on which to build.

  Can this be made to work?
  It's conceivable. They are talking about forcing in a certain percentage of Sunni-community representatives into the mix regardless of the number of votes cast for them, regardless if they're on the ballot.

  But a Shiite legislative majority that represents the already Shiite population majority will tug the government that comes out of this process towards Iran, and inevitably, the gravity field means Iraq, or the significant non-Kurdish chunk of Iraq, will likely be part of a Greater Iran or merely a protectorate of Iran by 2010, much like Puerto Rico is now a U.S. protectorate now. Talibaptists everywhere, and not a jot to think.

  by Big Jack Stark on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:11:18 PM PDT

•  The lost cause

  Maybe you've seen this MB, as I see you referenced Stratfor back in Nov., but may be new for some - this is major corp/conserv. group, advocating pulling out:
  "The U.S. military is now carrying out an impossible mission. It is trying to
  suppress a well-organized guerrilla force using primarily U.S. troops whose
  intelligence about the enemy is severely limited by language and cultural
  barriers that cannot be solved by recruiting Iraqis to serve as intelligence
  aides. The United States either operates blind or compromises its security.

  Unless the Iraqi guerrillas are not only throwing all of their strength into
  this offensive, but also using up their strength in a non-renewable fashion,
  the Jan. 30 elections will not be the end of the guerrilla war. There will
  be
  a lull in guerrilla operations -- guerrillas have to rest, recruit and
  resupply like anyone else -- but after a few months, another offensive will
  be launched. There is, therefore, no possibility that the Sunni guerrilla
  movement will be suppressed unless there is a dramatic change in the
  political landscape of the Sunni community....

  "The withdrawal of U.S. forces west and south of the Euphrates and in an arc
  north to the Turkish border and into Kurdistan would provide the United
  States with the same leverage in the region, without the unsustainable cost
  of the guerrilla war. The Saudis, Syrians and Iranians would still have U.S.
  forces on their borders, this time not diluted by a hopeless pacification
  program.

  Something like this will have to happen. After the January elections, there
  will be a Shiite government in Baghdad. There will be, in all likelihood,
  civil war between Sunnis and Shia. The United States cannot stop it and
  cannot be trapped in the middle of it. It needs to withdraw."
  from: Facing Realities in Iraq
  December 30, 2004 1840 GMT
  By George Friedman

  I don't have an online source of the report - got as email - but the Stratfor site is:
  http://web2.stratfor.com/corp/Corporate.neo?s=SUB&c=d
  or www.statfor.com/
  Email me if you'd like the entire report. Just the existence of this "privatized intell" group is scary to me. Their take on the war is really sickening - they think it was successful and valid because it shifted power realities - thus all those people have died for some very dubious results! But is interesting that even from a hard, cold policy evaluation, getting out is what needs to happen. And the elections are irrelevant.

  by JFEden on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:20:12 PM PDT

  •  An online source...

    for this article:

    (a weird one!) http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,24394.0.html

    -pretty interesting site in itself!

    by JFEden on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:36:41 PM PDT

  •  You can render me no higher compliment

    than confusing me with MB.  Thanks.

    by Armando on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:21:08 PM PDT

    •  Oh. Sorry...

      Uhhh, thanks. Or, You're welcome!
      Good stuff here, Armando!

      by JFEden on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:49:31 PM PDT

•  Andy Stephenson's run-in with Sen. Lautenberg

  This is a direct quote from Andy Stephenson, aka god_bush_n_cheney, as of today:

  'To the people of NJ from Andy Stephenson.  I just spoke with Frank Lautenberg in the elevator.  I first asked Senator Lautenberg if he had a few minutes to talk to me.  He said yes.  I began to talk to him about the voting issues I found in FL and OH.  He couldn't get out of the elevator quick enough.  Being the tenacious person I am, I followed him out and asked, "Senator won't you please look at the evidence?  Won't you please stand with Mr. Conyers?  Won't you please stand for the American People?"  Mr. Lautenberg said, "I don't want to hear this."  I said, "Mr. Lautenberg, I have seen the evidence,   I've seen it with my own eyes.  I discovered it."  To which he replied, "If you don't leave me alone and stop harassing me, I will have you arrested." I said to Mr. Lautenberg, "If you stand with Mr. Conyers, you will be a hero."  He said "I am a hero. I was in World War II." I replied, "You won't be in the eyes of the American people if you don't stand up with Mr. Conyers tomorrow.'

  by kamqute on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:29:52 PM PDT

  •  Wrong thread

    by Armando on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:20:14 PM PDT

•  Iraq: Love it or Leave It

  I mean America.

  I mean.

  Um.

  Oh wait.

  Never mind...

  by Volvo Liberal on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:34:50 PM PDT

•  Elections SHOULD be held on 1/30

  As I have said numerous times during this incessant drum-beat toward postponement, the elections in Iraq should not be delayed. The current violence is largely aimed at disrupting the elections, and to postpone them would only result in a longer period of this sort of destabilizing actions. I truly cannot understand people who don't want the elections held as soon as possible even as they recognize the situation is getting worse (and won't be getting better anytime soon...). It seems like they're a little confused and punditing at cross purposes. As I said in a previous comment to one of Armando's posts:

  "Things are getting worse, it seems, and not better. Elections in January will likely be far safer than elections in April or November 2005 would be. If you think that delaying the elections will ease the potential for terrorist strikes against candidates and polling places, then you have to admit your opinion is premised on the fact that not only is Bush and Allawi's strategy a good one, but it's working to make Iraq progressively safer. I don't think many here at Dkos think that.  It's hypocritical to say the election should be delayed for security, and then say Iraq is devolving into a less secure state day by day and month by month.

  The election in Iraq should not be delayed past the January deadline already set. Elections held later will almost certainly not be safer as the postponement would only allow the terrorists to plan more elaborate and more pyrotechnic disruptions. The sooner the popular will of the Iraqi people is divined in some rough form the sooner we'll know what they really want (federalism, loose confederation of autonomous states, theocracy, civil war, complete and total anarchy, etc.) and the sooner the United States can extricate itself from the whole mess."

  Please come up with a good reason why the elections to Iraq should be delayed besides'  the fact that it's "too dangerous" /or start to believe it's getting "better" over there and a delay will help...

  by Addison on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:43:56 PM PDT

  •  Your argument contains a crucial fallacy:

    that somehow elections will decrease the violence going on in Iraq.  It's unclear how the elections would accomplish this feat that has not been accomplished since Bush declared victory.  The violence will continue before/during/after elections, just as violence continued before/during/after "mission accomplished," Hussein's capture and imprisonment, and the so-called transfer of power to the interim government.

    Taking the violence as a given, what's important here is to salvage what scraps of the Iraq war fiasco that can be salvaged with legitimate elections.  It's becoming increasingly obvious that elections this month might very well lack legitimacy.  Hence, it would make sense to postpone them.

    by GN1927 on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:13:22 PM PDT

    •  your argument does too...

      Taking the violence as a given, what's important here is to salvage what scraps of the Iraq war fiasco that can be salvaged with legitimate elections

      the elections won't be legitimate no matter what. here i'm talking both in terms of the "real" authenticity and the perceived one here on Dkos. we're gonna find something to bitch about no matter how the elections come off, and rightfully so.

      The violence will continue before/during/after elections, just as violence continued before/during/after "mission accomplished," Hussein's capture and imprisonment, and the so-called transfer of power to the interim government.

      ok. so this is a case for delayed elections how? iraq and violence now go together like "bar-be" and "que," might as well have the elections now, get out, and give em an election cycle to work things out (slightly more) for themselves (with, no doubt, our help...)

      i don't care if elections lessen or heighten the violence, really. i think it'll stay about the same after the elections with a few more assassinations and a few less car bombs. that's just a guess, though, i don't know and nor does it matter much.

      what i do care about is the united states extricating themselves from the position they currently hold within the country (though, perhaps, not entirely...) as soon as possible. delaying the elections is the same as extending us troops' tours of duty. and the delay accomplishes nothing. this is all just an opportunistic bush-bashing. if he had kept delaying the elections there'd be a fault found with that. this isn't to say that armando or the 99% of kossacks who want the elections delayed are acting in bad faith, just i wonder if they're thinking about what the actual best policy is for bush to pursue and, separately though related, what the best decision would be re our troops and presence in the region.

      by Addison on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:52:52 PM PDT

      •  We're fucked

        by Armando on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 10:58:44 PM PDT

      •  I guess our disagreement

        boils down to a belief that holding elections which have a high possibility of the perception of illegitimacy will somehow ask as a watershed moment in which the war can be declared "over."  If we rush the elections are they are seen as illegitimate, I think that our time in Iraq will be prolonged rather than shortened due to the chaos and upheaval illegitimate elections can potentially cause.

        by GN1927 on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 07:10:22 AM PDT

•  Hey Armando, speaking of baseball. . .

  What's the word in PR?

  Will Beltran go to the Mets?

  by Pachacutec on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:47:42 PM PDT

•  A little old lady

  I talked to just before the election told me she would work her full shift at Wal-Mart (no pension, no savings), then go stand in line in a cold rain for however many hours it took to vote and stand against Bush and his cronies.  I was very impressed with her.  How much more impressive is a voter willing to risk life itself?

  by moltar on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:48:22 PM PDT

•  what 10-15% not peaceful means in US terms

  538 EVS   10% = 53/54
  15% 79-81

  taking the lowest number in each case.   We will eliminate that number of EVS, but watch how we do it, and let's presume we will then look for only a majority of those EVs cast

  53:
  TX 33, OH 20

  That means Bush would have 233 and Kerry 252

  79  TX 33, FL 27, IN 12, MS 7

  That means Bush would have 207, and Kerry still has 252.

  Perhaps this works as a frame to convince some Republicans of the folly of going ahead with the elections?

  by teacherken on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 02:53:15 PM PDT

•  You have to wonder

  What kind of idiot would vote in this election? There is at least a 20% chance that your polling place will be bombed. Voting is just asking to be killed. I wouldn't even take that risk to vote for Barack Obama, much less whatever American puppets are running in this election.

  Its kind of like a reverse poll test. The only people allowed to vote are the stupidest amongst the population.

  by Brian in TX on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:06:58 PM PDT

•  the ONLY reason

  I can really think of that would make sense of delaying the election would be if it gave time to bring the sunni's into the process and have them actually on the ballot, otherwise as i believe some others here have said, what difference does it make ?

  the insurgents are not going to tire. The Americans are doubtfully going to put any significant number of extra bodies on the ground, there are none, and the iraqi security forces are years away from even the hope of being effective.

  I think holding the elections, even if they prove to be a bloody mess, literally, will do a number of things that need ot be done.

  1. give legitimacy to the Kurds and shiites so they can begin their dialogue
     
  2. Move the insurgents out of the election prevention mode and into some other mode that is going to be more constant. right now their aims are foggy, it might help us understand them better, even if it doesnt reduce the violence.
     
  3. It gives political cover to coalition partners to withdraw, placing greater political pressure on the administration to DO SOMTHING, when the situation doesnt improve
     
  4. AFTER the elections, when the situation isnt improved, there are no more "tipping points" for the administration to hang their hat on, so they are going to be more serious questions as to their plan, it might even force them to start thinking about develoing a plan.
     
  5. There is always a miniscule chance that we are wrong, and after the elections political forces in Iraq start to take a hold if the situation and bring more order to the chaos.

  If we delay 6 months, and the sitatuation is the same, then what ? delay some more ? for what purpose ? I think those that think Delay is helpful really need to explain their rationale more clearly. I certainly dont need to see Delayed elections to prove this administration has failed, that much is obviuos right now.

  by Pounder on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 03:31:01 PM PDT

•  I just dont see it.......

  I don't see any way of parsing the votes in such a way as to result in "legitimacy."  The Kurds will dominate in the north, but their autonomy will be severely diluted, which will not make them happy.  The Sunnis will not be participating in numbers sufficient to provide even the illusion of a representative government.  The Shia will get the lion's share of however many votes are actually cast, but there is still no scenario which allows the US to withdraw, even if one assumes that we ever have any intention of doing so.  Will we allow a Shiite Iraq to cozy up to Iran?  If so, how would Chimpy explain to the American people that thousands of American kids were killed, maimed or wounded so that we could hand Iraq over to Iran?  We can only prevent that by sticking around.  

  In a sense, the current insurgency plays into Bushfeld's hands by rendering the outcome controversial.  No concievable outcome will leave Iraq sufficiently secure for us to pull out.  Consequently, Bush will be "resolute" in his determination to remain.

  I'm predicting right now that we will hear something along the lines of "We have planted the seed of democracy.  Now we must make certain that it has a chance to take root."

  We're there for the long haul, even in the best scenario.  Worst case.....I don't even want to think about it.......

  by roxtar on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 04:42:46 PM PDT

•  Whether elections are held or not ...

  they're most likely to be meaningless in anything but the shortest run. Our Administration will possibly force/enable them with military assistance, but what difference will they make? For openers, the electoral process is going to be faulty, and the results highly suspect. Just look at Ohio, and then compare that to the Iraqi electoral infrastructure; you think Baghdad can do it better than Cleveland? Then, once the "results" are in place, what kind of government will it be? I'm not referring to whether it'll be a good or bad (by our standards) government, but whether those who get elected are capable or even willing to co-operate with the others sufficiently to actually form a governing group. And in the unlikely event they can, what following will they have from the populace, and how will they ever begin to enforce a rule of law? Add to that the attrition by assassination: how many candidates will still be alive when the elections are due, and three months later?

  As has been said over and over, on this site and elsewhere, the elections are unlikely to benefit the Iraqi people. The only possible benefit can be for us: we can possibly use the event to mark the beginning of the end of our involvement there. We'll leave in disgrace, we'll leave a shambles behind, and we will have failed in whatever it was that we wanted to do in the first place. But, possibly, we'll leave, leaving them one less reason to kill each other, and we'll stop being targets. And Bush can sell it, however hollowly, as another victory.
  

  by gbdoc on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 04:56:44 PM PDT

•  Violence and instability help U.S.

  aims in Iraq.

  Pitting Iraqi against Iraqi prevents the emergence of multi-ethnic political alliances which would have, as their main aim, kicking U.S. military and corporations out.

  And Bush's push for elections has been very effective at promoting internecine violence and instability in Iraq.

  Meanwhile, more killing and turmoil over there solidifies pro-military sentiment here. That in turn benefits Republicans and war profiteers.

  Everybody wins except for the Iraqi people--and the American people.

  Who says Bush's policies are a failure?

  by YellowDogBlue on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 05:26:24 PM PDT

•  the worse is the enemy of the merely bad

  or something like that.

  i have to be a complete contrarian here.  we should hold the elections on schedule. this is perhaps the only thing i agree with the bush administration on.

  will there be massive violence on election day?  probably - but who knows if it will be significantly worse than any other day this month.

  will there be fighting between various ethnic groups after the election?  perhaps.  what alternatives prevent this?

  right now the shi'a are relatively quiet because they're biding time, waiting for the election.  likewise the kurds.  so right now most of the violence is from the sunni areas, because they figure they have nothing to lose.

  postpone the election and now the shi'a and the kurds lose patience, so they join the insurgency.  they attack americans, they attack the sunni, they attack each other.  violence gets exponentially worse.  now when do you think it will be "safe" enough to hold an election?

  rig the election so the shi'a don't get a majority or chalabi or allawi or some other obvious puppet wins, everybody goes ballistic just the same way.

  so i say hold the election come hell or high water (could be both) then declare another fake victory and get the futz outta there.  that last part is probably where bushco and i would disagree - i doubt they'd be willing to abandon our new halli-built bases and the sweetheart deals for our oil services companies.  i say it has to be a complete withdrawal.  get someone else in there to clean up and send us the bill.

  the longer we stay in, trying to "restore order", the worse things will get.  postpone the election and all hell breaks loose. hold the election and the new government will be only quasi-legitimate.  but i bet you the iraqi people are going to use just one criteria to judge how legitimate that government is: how fast they tell the americans to get the f@$# out of their country.  they ask us to say, you'd better believe nobody trusts them, and again all hell breaks loose.

  holding the election on january 30th is an incredibly bad idea.  unfortunately it's the least bad idea out there at the moment.

  by zeke L on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 05:43:13 PM PDT

•  200,000

  I agree with those who say the elections must be held on January 30 for the simple reason that the insurgency will not calm down in the near future. As bad as it is now, it will be worse in three months, not better. If you're going to delay the elections you might as well cancel them outright. The reason tinkering with the election date is futile is that the insurgency is massive. Huge. The Iraqi Intelligence Chief just pegged it at 200,000 people - 40,000 fulltime fighters and 160,000 part-timers, active supporters, aiders, abettors, etc.  That means more than the number of US troops.  If that number is remotely accurate - and nobody has really disputed it - then this election business will do nothing to quell the insurgency. If anything, the election will ratify the transfer of official power to the Shia, meaning virtually the entire Sunni population can be considered to be in rebellion.

  by Elrod on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 07:38:09 PM PDT

•  They'll just surprise everyone

  by having them on the 29th. It worked for the handover of power...

  by dhosek on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 10:03:26 PM PDT

•  The elections are meaningless.

  Nothing will change with these elections.  If US troops leave the government will collapse and GW knows it.  We can't even drive down the highways anymore, so what do we really control anyway?  This is the GOP's disaster for America.  As Thomas Jefferson eloquently said. "War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong: and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses."  Does that sound like Iraq or what?

  by thinkingman on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 07:18:03 PM PDT