NationStates Jolt Archive

It's five days till the elections in Iraq. What do you think will happen? How many will vote? How many attacks will there be? Who will win?

Regardless of what you think is likely to happen, what would you define as success?


(Note: the poll above refers to number of voters killed by insurgents only; don't take that to include insurgents killed in the course of attacks)

I think the Islamic vote will put a Muslim in office. Its crazy, but hey I'm a risk taker.

Also: Hellstorm on election day.

It's unpredictable, but I dare predict the impossible. Anyhow, Iyad Allawi will retain the prime ministership. The Sunnis won't vote, so there will only be a few in the government. However, there will be plenty of Shiites and Kurds, and a proportional number of Turkomens and Christians. Most importantly, however, there will be a 70% voter turnout rate, if only if those guys are not Sunni Arabs.

Kerry will lose by 3%

An Iraqi blogger comments...

http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/archives/2005_01_01_healingiraq_archive.html#110572412701884504

The United Iraqi Coalition is almost frantic in its election campaigning. Their posters and banners are all over Baghdad which makes me wonder how it is in the south. Their slogans are scrawled on every wall in town, and of course you have the obligatory picture of Sistani stamped on every poster with the words: "vote for the choice of the Marji'iya.

Several political groups have objected to this overt use of religious symbols by the United Coalition list parties to sway Shi'ite voters in their favour. The Independent Electoral Commission also issued a statement warning against this kind of campaigning.

Nevertheless, the Marji'iya has not yet denied support for the list. Some of Sistani's agents have issued vague statements that the Marji'iya is behind all Iraqis, Sistani is a father figure, etc. etc., but they never deny when asked about support for this particular list.

No one doubts that the Grand Ayatollah would prefer to keep his position as ambiguous as possible, as he usually tends to do. The United Iraqi Coalition list is said to include many of his agents and representatives, and of course Hussein Al-Shahristani, on top of the list, is very close to Sistani. It is only natural that he would like to see this list gain a large presence in the forthcoming National Assembly.

The fatal mistake of boycotting the elections by Sunni Iraqis is going to make that easier. The Sunnis have been acting like spoiled unhappy children when things don't go their way. They start breaking up things and threaten to mess everything up. 'Either I play or I burn down the playground,' as we say here.

The threat of civil war and factional violence is a very real one. No matter what government results from elections, Sunnis would deem it illegitimate and the violence or the 'burning down of the playground' will continue. Two Shi'ite mosques have been attacked over the last week and a representative of Sistani was assassinated. Tribal Sheikhs from the south were kidnapped from a bus in Latifiya.

Some experts say that all Iraqi factions have coexisted peacefully for centuries and that nothing is going to change that now. I disagree. The tensions and the mistrust have always been there on both sides. Saying one thing in public while holding on to a different opinion is characteristic of both sides. The last three decades of oppression by the Sunni minority have only made things worse.

I have heard some terrible prejudices against Iraqi Shia from people I have contact with, some of whom are educated and sophisticated. Although I have heard these things for all my life, it has never been as widespread as it is now. This is the underlying reason for boycotting the elections, Sunnis know they will lose even if the whole governorates of Nineva, Salah Al-Din and Al-Anbar vote. They believe they can save face by not participating.


and


One week to elections day and the general atmosphere in the capital is eerie, yet strikingly familiar. I suspect the streets of Baghdad will look as if a war is looming this week. There is no doubt that many Iraqis regard the date of 30 January as a day of renewed hope, one they have been awaiting all their lives, but at the same time, many others are already dreading it.

The interim government has promised security measures that would reduce the violence on the day of elections, but I fail to see how they will be able to protect all 5,000 (or so) balloting centres. Many voting centres have already been successfully attacked or destroyed in many areas.

Now that the picture is clear, the two main competing lists seem to be the United Iraqi Coalition list and Allawi's Al-Iraqiya list. Ayad Allawi, and other ministers running on his list, have quite expectedly used their governmental positions in campaigning. One minister reportedly handed out 100 dollar 'gifts' to journalists attending a press conference for Allawi, a practice that brings back bad memories to many Iraqis.

Sheikh Naji Al-Abbudi, a spokesman for Sistani, affirmed the claims that the Grand Ayatollah is backing the United Iraqi Coalition list. Indeed, Sistani's agents all over the country have been quite active in educating Iraqi Shia on the merits of elections, which has led to the assassination of at least two of them. Al-Abbudi stated that "His Emminence" decided to openly support the list because "others" (obviously a reference to Allawi) have been abusing official state positions and media outlets in their campaigning. Again there is no official written statement from Sistani's office confirming this allegation, which I think is intentional.

Ahmed Al-Chalabi and defense minister Hazim Al-Sha'lan have been engaging in shrill public attacks over the media. Chalabi describing Sha'lan as a "Ba'athist" and a "former double agent for Saddam and the CIA", while Sha'lan dismisses Chalabi as a "thief" and an "Iranian stooge who longs for his own origins by defending Iran". One remark made by Sha'lan on Al-Arabiya TV, that he couldn't say more about Chalabi because he would embarrass himself and the viewers almost made me roll on the floor. It was an extremely amusing episode, watching Chalabi looking smug and amused, contrasted with Sha'lan, all serious and barely keeping himself from swearing. Fistfights, please.

Hazim Al-Sha'lan, by the way, is the son of the late Sheikh of Al-Khaza'il in Diwaniya and has the potential to replace former information minister, M.S. Al-Sahaf, in his nonsensical media statements, which can be passed as jokes.

The main Kurdish coalition list (PUK and KDP) is barely mentioned outside the Kurdish region. Even there, many Kurds look and act as if they are going to grab the chance to vote them out of power. I doubt that will be the outcome though.

Many Iraqis, including conservative and religious Iraqis, are surprisingly rooting for the Iraqi Communist party, probably in an attempt to counter the influence of Islamists in the forthcoming National Assembly. The Communist party has the largest number of registered party members in the country and can be considered as the oldest popular political party in Iraq. Its support base is much larger than what it seems.

Good sources on who's actually running: "Who's who of Iraqi political parties and lists" (http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/01/whos-who-of-iraqi-political-parties.html) and "Election Mania" (http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/archives/2004_12_01_healingiraq_archive.html#110396725726936515).

You know, I just want to add a little something. I think that a decent turnout will be guranteed, as all the ethnic groups (except the Sunnis) are eager to use their power. So I think the biggest variable is this: whether Iraq will drift toward a secular or Islamic republic. We should find out when the results come in.

Saddam will win on write in by the 1 guy who makes it to the polls.

You know, I just want to add a little something. I think that a decent turnout will be guranteed, as all the ethnic groups (except the Sunnis) are eager to use their power. So I think the biggest variable is this: whether Iraq will drift toward a secular or Islamic republic. We should find out when the results come in.

Well, the point is that this is not either-or. The clergy will have a say, but they need not rule, certainly not directly. Ayatollah Sistani is one of the most popular Shia clerics and he opposes the notion of religious government (wilayat al-fiqh) and in that sense he is the counterpoint to the Shia clerics in Iran. That said, Islam will be influential in government, but mostly as moral authority, and it may be a very different flavor of Islam (e.g. Sistani's "vote or burn in hell forever" fatwa). I don't expect anything like Turkey (where the constitution gives the Army the power to enforce separation of chirch and state - if an islamic party was elected it is the Army's constitutional duty to overthrow it!). The kind of thing you may get is a constituion that states that the country is based on Islamic principles, but prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion. Call it a hybrid?

Most people already know this, but since some people are talking about a single person winning... This is how it will work: the elections are for a 275-person national assembly. Each party or coalition runs a list of candidates, and a certain number of those gets into the assembly based on how many votes the list got. For example if a list gets 10% of the vote, the top 27 people on that list will be in the assembly. Lists must contain at least one female candidate out of every three.

One question to everyone who takes the poll: Regardless of what you think would happen, what would you consider to be a success?

I would consider it a success if the attacks are more than a week apart. Three or more weeks without an attack would be best.

The Sunnis have been making rumblings of late that they MUST be included in any constitution framing. Which seems to indicate they might be reconsidering their boycott of the elections. My prediction: 80% turnout, 500 killed, mostly terrorists.

I would consider it a success if the attacks are more than a week apart. Three or more weeks without an attack would be best.

Assume an attack takes 50 fighters and they have a 20% chance of being killed (this varies for different kinds of attacks, of course). 1000 fighters can sustain two attacks a week for a year. What you're saying is that success would be if there are a few hundred fighters left, at most. That's not an achievable goal in the near future.

It takes very few people to cause total mayhem. However, this total mayhem is faily localized, and life goes on, if you don't lose your nerve.

Iraqi-Americans are lining up to vote...

http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2005/01/23/sections/news/focus_government/article_386223.php/


IRVINE – Some boarded buses in Modesto at midnight to get here. Others flew in from Seattle, or drove six hours in the family car.

Not Suad Aleshaiker of Irvine. All she did was persuade her doctor at Saddleback Memorial Medical Center to let her sneak out of bed about noon Saturday - three days after stomach surgery.

"I said, 'No matter how many tubes are coming out of my body, I have to go register!'" she said from a wheelchair at the former El Toro Marine base, where she registered to vote for Iraq's first free election in decades. "This is the biggest celebration - like the wedding of Iraq. If there's a wedding, you have to come no matter where you are or what shape you're in."

[...]

There are only five polling places in the United States - Irvine is the only site west of the Mississippi.

All of which made for a celebratory scene outside the old Officers Club at the former Marine base. People carried Iraqi flags, wore pins and Iraqi caps; they cheered and whooped while some played Iraqi music from their cars.

"I cannot even describe it. I had tears in my eyes when I saw all the people coming here," said Raghad Oueida, 37, of Irvine, who arrived with her husband and 19-day-old infant. "Compare it? Believe me, it's like when I had my baby."

The Sunnis have been making rumblings of late that they MUST be included in any constitution framing. Which seems to indicate they might be reconsidering their boycott of the elections. My prediction: 80% turnout, 500 killed, mostly terrorists.

even though al-sistani is calling for a sunni boycott, i think many will come out to the polls. there will still be a significant sunni representation as the voting for a prime minister (allawi) includes electing his already established "cabinet" which has significant sunni representation. also, people are not strictly divided by religious lines--people identify with their tribes more than their religious sect per se.

my prediction: 80% turnout +/- 3% less than 250 dead (hopefully none)

I'm pretty sure that the turnout will fairly large (at least 50%) and that violence will be a major factor. Lord knows how many will die.

However, this will be nothing compared to the violence AFTER the election when not everyone is happy with the results and the threat of civil war becomes reality.

Alas, time will tell.

even though al-sistani is calling for a sunni boycott

Surely you don't mean that? Al-Sistani has called for everyone to vote, although Sunnis will probably not listen to him.

the voting for a prime minister (allawi) includes electing his already established "cabinet" which has significant sunni representation.

The votes are for a list, not a person. Yes, Allawi is at the top of one list, but I don't think he has an "established cabinet".

Surely you don't mean that? Al-Sistani has called for everyone to vote, although Sunnis will probably not listen to him.

oops, don't know what i was thinking, time to go to bed, my mind is numb.

The votes are for a list, not a person. Yes, Allawi is at the top of one list, but I don't think he has an "established cabinet".

right, hence the use of "quotations" around cabinet as i did not realize the proper term was "list"

Meanwhile Zarqawi's most recent tape declares war on democracy and the Shia who support it... Some comments here (Zarqawi's in bold):

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/printjg20050126.shtml


Don't take the president's word for it - take Zarqawi's
Jonah Goldberg (back to web version) | email to a friend Send

January 26, 2005

Earlier this month the Washington Post's Richard Cohen wrote, "As the late Susan Sontag bravely pointed out in a New Yorker essay published right after Sept. 11, 2001, those terrorist attacks were in response to American policy in the Middle East - not, as Bush has said repeatedly since, because Islamic radicals cannot abide freedom."
...
In short, the notion that America is in a war for freedom over tyranny has elicited bipartisan snickering and guffawing. In the wake of Bush's inaugural, the chorus of complaints intensified. And understandably so, given the fact that his address was the most forceful articulation of his "freedom" vision to date.

But before the cackles could reach their crescendo, the naysayers hit an inconvenient snag. Musab al-Zarqawi, the "prince" of Al-Qaida in Iraq, appointed by Osama Bin Laden, came out and agreed with President Bush. "We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology," Zarqawi declared in a statement. "Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion," he said, and that is "against the rule of God."

Zarqawi's declaration came after a statement by Bin Laden himself in December, in which he pronounced: "Anyone who participates in these elections . has committed apostasy against Allah."

Now, this doesn't mean that Bin Laden and Zarqawi aren't motivated by less lofty - or merely different - principles than an Islamist rejection of democracy. To be sure, Bin Laden's initial grievances included America's relationship to Saudi Arabia, Israel and all the usual complaints. But underlying these gripes was an ideology - and remains an ideology - opposed to freedom and democracy. The intellectual founder of Islamism, Sayyid Qutb, wrote in 1957: "In the world there is only one party, the party of Allah; all of the others are parties of Satan and rebellion. Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve fight in the cause of the rebellion."


This is so important that I will quote it again...

"We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology ... Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion [which is] against the rule of God."

Zarqawi also called the Shia "dogs" and "heretics", and Al-Sistani "the devil".

Way to go, Z. That'll get people on your side.

Memo to opponents of the war: this is not a "resistance" to an "occupation". It is a bunch of thugs who have made quite clear their intention to seize power and impose their rule on everyone. Whether you think we should have gone in, you have to agree that they cannot be allowed to seize power.

Zarqawi has certainly proved the case made by GWB. We are fighting evil and the way to defeat it is through democracy. Are we sure that Karl Rove and al-Z aren't the same guy? I mean, have you ever seen them together?

Successful elections will be determined by the aftermath. If the victors are accepted by the population and the country isn't plunged into a Sunni-Shite war, democracy will have won. I think the Sunnis will vote, despite orders from al-Sadr to stay home. That will be a large success on its own merits.

The real test is going to be participation in the Constitutional convention to follow the elections. To borrow someones (Leno?) joke, we have one we aren't using...If the population has bought into the results of the election and will participate in writing the Constitution, I think the Middle East will be well on its way to being transformed. Look out Saudis, Syrians, Iranians...

Zarqawi has certainly proved the case made by GWB. We are fighting evil and the way to defeat it is through democracy. Are we sure that Karl Rove and al-Z aren't the same guy? I mean, have you ever seen them together?

Very funny, ha ha. This doesn't come out of the blue, it has been in a number of Bin Laden tapes and in propaganda issued by various religious figures which you can find at http://memri.org/ for example.

Successful elections will be determined by the aftermath. If the victors are accepted by the population and the country isn't plunged into a Sunni-Shite war, democracy will have won. I think the Sunnis will vote, despite orders from al-Sadr to stay home. That will be a large success on its own merits.

The Sunnis do not take orders from al-Sadr who is Shiite, and who hasn't issued a call to boycott as far as I know, and wouldn't be obeyed if he did. You probably mean they will vote despite Mr. Z?

The real test is going to be participation in the Constitutional convention to follow the elections. To borrow someones (Leno?) joke, we have one we aren't using...If the population has bought into the results of the election and will participate in writing the Constitution, I think the Middle East will be well on its way to being transformed. Look out Saudis, Syrians, Iranians...

That is the great hope or the great fear depending on which side you're on ;)

I think it will happen, but it just takes time. Comparing with previous times we have done country-building, we are *way* ahead of schedule. Remember, the fighing is most fierce just around the tipping point... it always looks as though things might tip the other way instead.

Well, the point is that this is not either-or. The clergy will have a say, but they need not rule, certainly not directly. Ayatollah Sistani is one of the most popular Shia clerics and he opposes the notion of religious government (wilayat al-fiqh) and in that sense he is the counterpoint to the Shia clerics in Iran. That said, Islam will be influential in government, but mostly as moral authority, and it may be a very different flavor of Islam (e.g. Sistani's "vote or burn in hell forever" fatwa). I don't expect anything like Turkey (where the constitution gives the Army the power to enforce separation of chirch and state - if an islamic party was elected it is the Army's constitutional duty to overthrow it!). The kind of thing you may get is a constituion that states that the country is based on Islamic principles, but prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion. Call it a hybrid?
Even so, more clerics in power will mean growing influence of the Islamic right in Iraq. The real question is when does it approach the threshold od Iranian-style theocracy.

Even so, more clerics in power will mean growing influence of the Islamic right in Iraq. The real question is when does it approach the threshold od Iranian-style theocracy.

Paradoxically, this may mean a growing influence of the Islamic progressives/moderates. The Islamic right gets in power whenever getting in power is a matter of superior force. I don't think they will be *voted in*. Certainly Sistani is the pinnacle of moderation... he is moderate even by western standards, and that's saying a lot. I assume that whoever he is backing will be likewise. The Iranian clerics see him as their nemesis because he represents *the* other power nexus for Shia. Also they are diametrically opposed on almost every single issue.

The Sunnis do not take orders from al-Sadr who is Shiite, and who hasn't issued a call to boycott as far as I know, and wouldn't be obeyed if he did. You probably mean they will vote despite Mr. Z?

I think I got the factions mixed up, but I thought I heard on NPR that al-Sadr had issued an order to boycott, but has now decided to take part in the "process", after all. Anyhow, I think the various groups are more Iraqi than anything else, and they will all participate in fairly large numbers.

Now I'm keeping my fingers crossed until Sunday to see how my predictions pan out.

Paradoxically, this may mean a growing influence of the Islamic progressives/moderates. The Islamic right gets in power whenever getting in power is a matter of superior force. I don't think they will be *voted in*. Certainly Sistani is the pinnacle of moderation... he is moderate even by western standards, and that's saying a lot. I assume that whoever he is backing will be likewise. The Iranian clerics see him as their nemesis because he represents *the* other power nexus for Shia. Also they are diametrically opposed on almost every single issue.
So you're saying that if a moderate Islamic government comes to power, it might be a counterweight to Iran?

Why is the # of dead going down as the number of voted goes up?
These are two untied phenomena!

You could easily have (say) 70% vote, and 5 dead. Or 5000.
Some might even argue that the more that show up, the MORE should die! ;)



Seriously, I'd put 50% or greater voting as a success.

-Markreich

Do you know who Queensryche is? Vote here!! : http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389278

So you're saying that if a moderate Islamic government comes to power, it might be a counterweight to Iran?

Exactly.

I should explain a little about where the moderate Islamic views derive from... once upon a time there existed the notion that every believer in Islam would make religious decisions based on his own reasoning and on precedent (ijtihad). This is somewhat similar to the Protestant (or Lutheran) beliefs, in particular the "private interpretation" doctrine. Unfortunately a specialized class of religious scholars (the ulema) who produced rulings arose, and the majority of believers started following or imitating them (taqleed). This is similar to the formation of the Catholic Church, except it was never unified, there are at least five competing schools. Rulers (sheikhs, qadis, and caliphs) were selected from among the ranks of (and by) the religious scholars.

The progressive view in today's Islam is that the earlier practice of ijtihad and "private interpretation" should be restored. Think of this as the Christian Reformation which made matters of faith something that everyone decides for themselves, not something that the Pope decides. Along with this freedom of conscience, you get most of the other western freedoms purely as a by-product.

The reactionary view is that the class of religious scholars should rule (wilayat al-fiqh). The Iranian clerics practice (and obviously support) wilayat al-fiqh. Al-Sistani vehemently opposes it (and therefore undermines the basis for their rule). I don't think he has spoken on the subject of "the gate of ijtihad" but I would guess he tacitly approves of that too, within limits.

Why is the # of dead going down as the number of voted goes up?
These are two untied phenomena!

You could easily have (say) 70% vote, and 5 dead. Or 5000.
Some might even argue that the more that show up, the MORE should die! ;)


Because voting is inversely proportional to intimidation, and intimidation is proportional to deaths, more or less.

If you think the numbers are combined incorrectly, just vote based on the one you consider more important ;)

So you're saying that if a moderate Islamic government comes to power, it might be a counterweight to Iran?

Hmm, Iranian Shia are Persians, Iraqi Shia are Arabs. That said, Karbala and Najaf are the world centers of the Shia religion, second only to Mecca, and Al-Sistani and his disciples are the religious establishment there. Many Iranians probably respect that group more than they respect their own clerics.

To give you an idea of what that means, imagine a Pope in the Vatican who *was* Martin Luther or a similarly radical reformer - and imagine a very unhappy Cardinal Richelieu in France who is about to lose his control over the throne and just about everything else.

I wouldn't say so much counterweight, as legitimacy-destroyer and therefore cause of overthrow.

Because voting is inversely proportional to intimidation, and intimidation is proportional to deaths, more or less.

If you think the numbers are combined incorrectly, just vote based on the one you consider more important ;)

Ah, but intimidation means a lower turnout, therefore a lower body count!

That's what I did.

It's five days till the elections in Iraq. What do you think will happen? How many will vote? How many attacks will there be? Who will win?

Regardless of what you think is likely to happen, what would you define as success?


(Note: the poll above refers to number of voters killed by insurgents only; don't take that to include insurgents killed in the course of attacks)

First, i think a Islamic fundie will win.

Success, Bush pulls out troops would be good. Success would be Bush gives his Presidency to someone else.

Iraq will turn out to be like Iran. We will look like idiots because we learned you can't force freedom lol.

One question to everyone who takes the poll: Regardless of what you think would happen, what would you consider to be a success?

The success is that they are having elections at all. There will be deaths, no doubt. But, the people whose freedom means as much as life will take the chance and vote. As far as figuring the odds on % of voters, I would hazzard an overall guess of around 50-60% with a much higher % in the 14 stable regions. I don't want to guess at the number of deaths. Just doesn't seem right to me.

I don't want to guess at the number of deaths. Just doesn't seem right to me.

Agreed. The sole reason why that was there is that basically no matter how pessimistic an estimate people pick - within the realm of possibility - it will not stop the elections, nor will it be especially remarkable compared to some of the synchronized attacks we have seen already (550 in one day during the Shia festivals last summer). I want people to think clearly about the possibilities and accept that getting hurt is the cost of doing business, so they don't experience shock after.

Another likely type of attack might be to capture, destroy or compromise the ballot boxes or blank ballots. I want people to be prepared for that as well. If the voting data from a precint or five is lost, that does not invalidate the results. Life is imperfect, especially when people are shooting at you.

I think the Islamic vote will put a Muslim in office.
The chances of that, in a country with over 90% muslims, are good.

Since the names of the candidates of the 100+ parties are kept a secret the Americans will engineer the elections so that their candidate will win.

Where is the low % of voter turn out, with low amounts of death?

Since the names of the candidates of the 100+ parties are kept a secret the Americans will engineer the elections so that their candidate will win.

Source? They are not secret, at a minimum the IEC has them. I don't think Americans have anything to win from engineering the elections, seeing how their candidate(s) will win anyway. Remember the election is for lists not individials. There are 92 lists btw.

Where is the low % of voter turn out, with low amounts of death?

Just post it, I think there's no way to change the poll now.

Hmm, Iranian Shia are Persians, Iraqi Shia are Arabs. That said, Karbala and Najaf are the world centers of the Shia religion, second only to Mecca, and Al-Sistani and his disciples are the religious establishment there. Many Iranians probably respect that group more than they respect their own clerics.

To give you an idea of what that means, imagine a Pope in the Vatican who *was* Martin Luther or a similarly radical reformer - and imagine a very unhappy Cardinal Richelieu in France who is about to lose his control over the throne and just about everything else.

I wouldn't say so much counterweight, as legitimacy-destroyer and therefore cause of overthrow.
So this might be killing two birds with one stone: giving legitimacy to the Iraqi government, while creating more illigitimacy for the government in Tehran.

Source? They are not secret, at a minimum the IEC has them. I don't think Americans have anything to win from engineering the elections, seeing how their candidate(s) will win anyway. Remember the election is for lists not individials. There are 92 lists btw.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6689439/site/newsweek/
They are a secret. At least untill election day.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4033263.stm#who
And it's 120 parties.

I think it will look something like Election 2000...you know, low turnout, mass fraud, huge confusion, an electoral debacle.
So, just like 4 years ago. But with noticeably more mass killings.

It's hard to define any success when the current situation is such a mudpit already.

What I would consider a success (as in "situation normal - slightly less fucked up") would be the removal of American (and Coalition) forces from Iraq starting within a month after the election, all insurgent attacks ceasing after the last American soldiers have left, and reconstruction (as in, a working economy fit for being involved in international trade) largely finished within a year and a half from now.

Yes, that is impossible. But then, so is success, in this case.

So this might be killing two birds with one stone: giving legitimacy to the Iraqi government, while creating more illigitimacy for the government in Tehran.

Exactly.

Al Sistani and the moderate Shia clergy have done us (and themselves and Iraq) one other huge favor: they have so far prevented the devastating backlash for all the Sunni attacks which have killed thousands of regular Shia, including attacks on mosques and schools which were obviously aimed at provoking a sectarian civil war. Many Shia are out for blood, but they join the ING/Iraqi Army in order to be able to kick ass "by the book". They are a lot less gentle than the Americans though...

What I would consider a success (as in "situation normal - slightly less fucked up") would be the removal of American (and Coalition) forces from Iraq starting within a month after the election, all insurgent attacks ceasing after the last American soldiers have left, and reconstruction (as in, a working economy fit for being involved in international trade) largely finished within a year and a half from now.

"all insurgent attacks ceasing after the last American soldiers have left" - what the heck are you smoking?! what would happen is the exact opposite. the insurgents will make a concerted effort to seize complete control of several provinces, probably Anbar, Nineveh and Salah ad Din, and they will probably succeed. they will use that as their secure base of operations while they try aggressively to expand into the rest of the country.

why not just invite them to form the new government instead?

this is so bogus...

Exactly.

Al Sistani and the moderate Shia clergy have done us (and themselves and Iraq) one other huge favor: they have so far prevented the devastating backlash for all the Sunni attacks which have killed thousands of regular Shia, including attacks on mosques and schools which were obviously aimed at provoking a sectarian civil war. Many Shia are out for blood, but they join the ING/Iraqi Army in order to be able to kick ass "by the book". They are a lot less gentle than the Americans though...
Well, hopefully this trend will last.

Well, hopefully this trend will last.

Yes, indeed.

It's also why we have advisors in Iraqi Army units - to serve as role models, to bond with the men, and to hopefully pull them back from doing anything we may all regret.

I don't trust this election. Some people will vote more than 10 times like they did in Afghanistan.

I don't trust this election. Some people will vote more than 10 times like they did in Afghanistan.

The "perfect election" has not been invented yet. I happen to know that dead people vote in many parts of the US. Does that mean that elections are useless? No, it doesn't. The fairer the better, but an imperfect election is vastly better than none at all.

I think the bigger problem is that extremists among the Sunni will prevent a lot of the Sunni population from voting. I expect the predominantly Sunni areas will have a voting rate under 50%, probably around 30-40%. This translates to 20-25 or so seats on the National Assembly, a substantial underrepresentation. They are doing much to marginalize themselves, and there's damn all we can do about it.

"all insurgent attacks ceasing after the last American soldiers have left" - what the heck are you smoking?! what would happen is the exact opposite. the insurgents will make a concerted effort to seize complete control of several provinces, probably Anbar, Nineveh and Salah ad Din, and they will probably succeed. they will use that as their secure base of operations while they try aggressively to expand into the rest of the country.

why not just invite them to form the new government instead?

this is so bogus...

That's nonsense. Those behind the insurgency can have any goal from Jihad to the extinction of humanity, but the ones that support them are those that want nothing else than the US to get the fsck out of their country and stop blowing things up. If the US leave, the insurgency will be left without support and recruits, and will shrivel up like nothing.

-----

The "perfect election" has not been invented yet. I happen to know that dead people vote in many parts of the US. Does that mean that elections are useless? No, it doesn't. The fairer the better, but an imperfect election is vastly better than none at all.

Let me guess: You considered the first election in Ukraine to be fair and legitimate, if a little imperfect? Gosh, now I understand why nobody ever challenged the US election. They could pre-print your vote and you wouldn't complain, right?

That's nonsense. Those behind the insurgency can have any goal from Jihad to the extinction of humanity, but the ones that support them are those that want nothing else than the US to get the fsck out of their country and stop blowing things up. If the US leave, the insurgency will be left without support and recruits, and will shrivel up like nothing.
The ones that support them will support them no matter what the cause. When the US leaves Iraq, the cause will simply change.

Time to resurrect this thread. Preliminary reports indicate turnout over 60%, possibly as high as 70%, and over 90% in many areas. The expected violence did not materialize, as only 35 people were killed in (apparently impotent) attacks.

Everyone who predicted 40% turn-out: where are you now?

Everyone who thinks we are imposing our will on the Iraqi people: where are you now?

Time to resurrect this thread. Preliminary reports indicate turnout over 60%, possibly as high as 70%, and over 90% in many areas. The expected violence did not materialize, as only 35 people were killed in (apparently impotent) attacks.

Everyone who predicted 40% turn-out: where are you now?

Everyone who thinks we are imposing our will on the Iraqi people: where are you now?

Bump!

I almost can't wait to see the "oh but this..." comments from naysayers.

-Markreich

Do you know who Queensryche is? Vote here!! : http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389278

I still don't trust this election.

I still don't trust this election.

Why? It's being monitored. It's certainly desired by the Iraqi public... What do you not trust?

-Markreich

Do you know who Queensryche is? Vote here!! : http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389278

Why? It's being monitored. It's certainly desired by the Iraqi public... What do you not trust?

-Markreich

Do you know who Queensryche is? Vote here!! : http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389278
Well Iraq is far from a democracy.
First off I wonder how many people voted several times and I wonder how many of them were informed about what they were voting for and I think the candidates were candidates "a la US" all the same.

Well Iraq is far from a democracy.
First off I wonder how many people voted several times and I wonder how many of them were informed about what they were voting for and I think the candidates were candidates "a la US" all the same.

Of *course* it's far from a democracy -- it's just starting to be one! It took the US 13 YEARS to go from declaring Independence to making a Constitution...

Nothing is ever perfect, but they're as good as can be. The citizenry is the citizenry... how many people in the US election were informed? I *know* several of my friends that voted Democrat or Republican down the line, and can't even name our Senators. :(

I think your mistrust of Bush may be making you mistrust everything. BTW, that's not a slam.

-Markreich

Do you know who Queensryche is? Vote here!! : http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389278

Of *course* it's far from a democracy -- it's just starting to be one! It took the US 13 YEARS to go from declaring Independence to making a Constitution...

Nothing is ever perfect, but they're as good as can be. The citizenry is the citizenry... how many people in the US election were informed? I *know* several of my friends that voted Democrat or Republican down the line, and can't even name our Senators. :(

I think your mistrust of Bush may be making you mistrust everything. BTW, that's not a slam.

-Markreich

Do you know who Queensryche is? Vote here!! : http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389278That's the point. The US is far from a democracy also and the declaration of independence and constitutions did not make it a democracy. They voted under Saddam as well so what is the point in declaring victory because there was an election in Iraq? It doesn't mean shit, democracy is more than elections.
And yes the US democracy is no better than Iran's or Iraq's (I think the literacy rate is better is Iran than in the US but I could be wrong).

That's the point. The US is far from a democracy also and the declaration of independence and constitutions did not make it a democracy. They voted under Saddam as well so what is the point in declaring victory because there was an election in Iraq? It doesn't mean shit, democracy is more than elections.
And yes the US democracy is no better than Iran's or Iraq's (I think the literacy rate is better is Iran than in the US but I could be wrong).

Er??
No one I know is declaring victory... I'm certainly not. I'm just relieved that a vote happened, that few were killed, and that it's a clear sign that the majority of Iraqis want the terrorists AND the Coalition out.

That depends on what you mean by better. I put 200+ years of sequential elections as being a lot better than Iran.

-Markreich

Do you know who Queensryche is? Vote here!! : http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389278

The "perfect election" has not been invented yet. I happen to know that dead people vote in many parts of the US. Does that mean that elections are useless? No, it doesn't. The fairer the better, but an imperfect election is vastly better than none at all.

Hell, the first Mayor Daley in Chicago was the master of this, in 1960 he got about 2000 dead folks to the polls.

And anyways, Psylos doesn't trust anybody.

That's the point. The US is far from a democracy also and the declaration of independence and constitutions did not make it a democracy. They voted under Saddam as well so what is the point in declaring victory because there was an election in Iraq? It doesn't mean shit, democracy is more than elections.


Yes, they voted under Saddam. But just who was running against him??

Considering Saddam once shot his Minister of Agriculture* for suggesting he resign, I'm rather skeptical that anyone was campaigning against him.