Over the weekend, several Iraqi election officials were dragged out of their car by insurgents in the middle of Baghdad and executed.


This happened in broad daylight on a busy street in the middle of the capital of the country. “Dozens of gunmen” had enough time to drag each of these men out of their car, make them kneel in the street before shooting each one in the head. They set the car on fire, then “paraded” around in the street.

Photographers were there to capture every bloody moment. But, where were the police? The US military?

This source says the guerrillas put up a roadblock and searched every car. Although it isn’t clear whether this was before the executions as they looked for their victims or afterwards, it obviously took some time. The only indication of US involvement was an Apache helicopter appearing as the killers escaped.



Has the security situation hopelessly deteriorated to the point where it will be impossible for elections to be held peacefully (i.e. without people being bombed or shot)?

Will Iraq be more or less secure after the elections?

If elections are held successfully, will the resulting elected officials have any real legitimacy, or will it deteriorate into Sunni/Shiite/Kurd civil war?

I don't see what you are attempting to convey by stating "This happened in broad daylight on a busy street in the middle of the capital of the country. “Dozens of gunmen” had enough time to drag each of these men out of their car, make them kneel in the street before shooting each one in the head. They set the car on fire, then “paraded” around in the street".

Can't this happen anywhere before the police arrive?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/20/...main/index.html





I see these photographers were there at the very beggining.

Has the security situation hopelessly deteriorated to the point where it will be impossible for elections to be held peacefully (i.e. without people being bombed or shot)?

In some area's of the country I doubt many people will show up at polling stations. That doesn't mean that elections will be impossible to be held peacefully at many area's in the country.

If elections are held successfully, will the resulting elected officials have any real legitimacy, or will it deteriorate into Sunni/Shiite/Kurd civil war?

I think no matter what government is elected it will be seen as more legitimate than the government in place now.

In the middle of the capitol of a country occupied by the military of the world's most powerful country?

Well, the best comparison I can think of off the top of my head was the 1997 North Hollywood shootout that lasted like 45 minutes or so. LAPD arrived at the scene within a few minutes. It was like a war zone in a densely populated area. The robbers were wearing Kevlar, had the cops outgunned (they had assault rifles with 100 round clips and a sh...boatload of other guns), and were spraying bullets wildly. Gunfire was continuous for 10 minutes. Six officers and 2 civilians were wounded, but only the bad guys died.

Now, if the much maligned LAPD can manage to reach that kind of scene within minutes, keep civilians from being killed, and kill the bad guys while using inferior firepower, don't you think the US military with better weapons and protection could do the same in the city they occupy? I don't know, but I kind of think the military in Baghdad would expect trouble and be on the lookout for it? Maybe they're a tad understaffed??

Now? They don't have a government in place now!! Pretty darned easy to improve on that, I 'spose.

It take's about 20 seconds to drag someone out of a car and shoot them in the head. That give's them a few minutes to "parade" around in the street. Again, I don't see were you are going with this "where were the police? The US military?" because obviously they showed up in a timely manner otherwise alot more people would have died. Notice the Iraqi police arrested 50 people, id say they responded with force. The US military has suffered one casualty due to hostile fire in a week and has noted attack's have reduced since the Fullujah assualt. Given they could be planning a big show for Jan..

Has the security situation hopelessly deteriorated to the point where it will be impossible for elections to be held peacefully (i.e. without people being bombed or shot)?

This news is very unsettling and the police should have been there at the very least to capture the murderers. But voter intimidation, even violent acts of such, are no stranger to western civilization, and certainly not to the history of the United States.

From the Civil War until about a century later, it's a no-brainer to realize that black men were often violently intimidated. Intimidation and violence were also used in the era of Tammany Hall.

But to answer your question, no. I think in the days prior and following the election, a major presence will be seen and felt so as to protect those Iraqis who wish to vote in the first free election in over fifty years, the last being to elect parliament members in the constitutional monarchy during the reign of King Faisal II. This is going to be the chance of a lifetime. Those that want to be a part of this will show up.

If elections are held successfully, will the resulting elected officials have any real legitimacy, or will it deteriorate into Sunni/Shiite/Kurd civil war?

Now that's a horse of a different color. If the Kurds, Shia, and Sunnis all feel they have a good representation in government, then it's possible that strife could be avoided for the time being. Yet if that does not happen, you could see protests from across the board.

Um, those arrests were for the bombing in Najaf. No one was arrested, or even caught, for the election officials' murders.

I don't think most Americans care if 63 or 633 Iraqis are killed in the run-up to the election. Like the President, many embrace the illusion that if Iraq can actually hold an election that is more important than the probability that it will do nothing to stabilize the security situation in the country. This is a farce and a cruel trick to play on the people of Iraq.

More secure or less secure? Who knows? I'm just convinced that either way our troops are going to be stuck there for years to come. Bush says they'll be home for Christmas when the mission is accomplished. Boy, does that sound familiar!

The optimist would say the elections will restore a legitimate government. The pessimist would say the chaos and disorder will continue unabated. The realist knows either is possible.

I think the elections will make Iraq less secure following the elections. I base this prediction on the fact that the US military will be unable to maintain security in the Sunni dominated regions of the country. This will prevent Sunni turnout, casting even more doubt regarding the national government in these regions. The new government will be looked upon the same way as the current one, as an American puppet, only now the US will not be able to get Sunni leaders to cooperate by dangling government positions for them. The insurgents wouldn't be influenced even if every Iraqi citizen voted in the election, so their status won't change. These two factors together will create even more resistance.

Right, so what was your point about them having enough time to drag someone out of their car, shoot them, and parade around?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006050

TWO different events in TWO different cities. Election officials in Baghdad, executed in the streets, no police/military. YOU brought up the 50 arrests in support of your argument that the police responded with force to the executions and I pointed out your error. Read the original post.

Ok so there wasn't any military or police within the area at the scene of the crime. Now, do you know how long it took for them to get to the area? Or are you just speculating? I read an Apache was there soon after. As I have allready pointed out it doesn't take very long to drag someone out of their car and shoot them, should the military/police have been beamed up to the area immediately?

Simply stating "they had enough time to shoot someone and dance in the street" does not indicate it took them forever to get to the area does it?

FYI there are 15,000 police in Baghdad and a full brigade (which consists of around 1,000-2,000 soldiers)

I think getting a helicopter to the scene before armed security speaks volumes. Suppose they weren't done killing? What's the helicopter going to do? Fire missiles into a residential area? Ok..bad example..

Anyhow, this clearly shows the resistance is getting bolder. This was no drive by shooting or bombing. They knew who they were looking for, searched until they found them, and executed them. But they SEARCHED. That is what's disturbing. If this execution was this easy, think of the message that went out to everyone concerned:

1. Nobody is safe unless you have armed escort. And with the ample supply of IED available, nothing is that safe. If the resistance chooses you, you are dead and there's very little anybody can do to stop it.
2. More of the enemy will see the example of what they too can get away with.

This was photogenic proof that killing in Iraq is shooting fish in a barrel. There is enough security to keep the invaders (that would be us) relatively safe, but not enough security to keep civilians safe. Unless there is a serious infusion of more troops (i.e. a draft) or the Iraqi security candidates miraculously begin to grow and defend for themselves, this behavior will increase.

That's interesting..... I thought killing the population of a country enrages the population against the people 'who dun it? Oh, wait that only applies to the US military, nevermind.

I dont see how you can say you had a fair and or functioning election process in the time of war and or the condition in iraq really. I mean look at the u.s in terms of how much elections go through to be verified and you still have fishy feelings about it all, or at least me and other people seem to. I think it will be pretty violent overall, i mean in terms of people dying and votes getting nulled in that and rocket attacks or what not. How well can the people running really portray themselves to the public, what about the sunni-shiite splitting that seems to be going on, or the kurds, and the conservative nurture of it all?

I think its being rushed and such is wrong, and if the elections are heavily riddled with violence and destruction or various acts related, how can you say its really an valid election?

will the u.s accept any policy as giving by a possible leadership elect? so many questions and again the rushed angle of it all, i feel this can be just as good as it could be bad overall to be crude on it. my best thoughts go to it for being positive, but i hold many negative thoughts on such overall as posted above.

The u.s to date along with the aid it gets from the supporting iraqis still cannot put a true face to the opposition from other iraqis and related in iraq. Save calling it an insurgency, which adapted from terrorists and such, you dont have a clear picture of iraqs social situation right now. How many people are running for office, what are their connections, how much ability do they hold again to run for office, is the u.s aiding any of them, in particular the current interim government? Again the complexity of it is rather large, and then the war time condition or iraq, it being rushed to get an elected leadership, i just dont know overall.

Looks like "the big show" opened a little early, Vampiel


MOSUL, Iraq (Reuters) - An attack on a tented dining hall at a U.S. military base killed 24 people and wounded about 60 in the Iraqi city of Mosul on Tuesday in one of the deadliest attacks on U.S. forces since they invaded Iraq last year.

One U.S. official said it was a mortar or rocket strike but an Iraqi group claimed one of its suicide bombers was behind it.

"We're not ruling anything out," Captain Phil Ludvigson, a U.S. military spokesman in Mosul, said. Among the dead were 14 U.S. soldiers and seven employees of U.S. contracting firm KBR.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/n...s_nm/iraq_dc_94

Let's just think about that for a moment. Another 14 soldiers whose families will be getting letters of condolence signed with a autopen by Don "Armor, What Armor?" Rumsfeld. Fourteen more soliders coming home in flag-draped coffins. Fourteen more soliders who leave wives, husbands, children and other loved ones to ask for who and for what they died for.

And that doesn't count the others who saw their legs and arms blown off, their eardrums ruptured, their eyes blinded, their faces disfigured and bodies mangled.

This on top of the 63 who were killed this weekend in Iraq. My, my, my. All this death and destruction and it's only Tuesday.

Merry Bloody Christmas.

Has reduced?! Has reduced?! By how many. There are close to 1600 insurgent attacks in Iraq per month. That is post-Fallujah. There is evidence that the dining hall bombing was a suicide bombing. That means insurgents are getting into heavily secured areas. I listened to Anthony Cordesman, a military expert, on NPR this morning. Things aren't getting better. The insurgents are pulling off more sophisticated, more organized attacks. Fallujah did very little to curb the insurgency.

I don't think that the elections will do anything to curb them either. The elections will not be seen as legitimate. What we can look forward to post-election are clan wars in addition to continued insurgent attacks.

According to the US military they have reduced.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6613194



They repeated this a few days ago on cnn.

However the attack's go down and up. I think they will increase next month due to the elections.

I see. So now we're only slightly over double what they were at the beginning of the year.

Associated Press, February 2004:

They don't seem to be decreasing, though they fluctuate. And now that they are getting better at getting past security to engage in these attacks, the attacks are more efficient.

And if there are elections and a government is established, what will happen if the elected government tells the US to leave?

Nothing is hopeless if the Iraqi people are willing to risk all for their freedom. The fact that they keep lining up for the very positions that might get them killed is an encouraging sign. I do not think that the elections will be entirely peaceful, as those who seek to keep Iraq from becoming a 'democracy' will be making every attempt to disrupt the process.



Iraq will be the same until the Iraqis stand up in greater numbers (as police, military, etc.) to take back their country from those who seek to keep it under tyranny. Not enough Iraqis are providing us with information on the perpetrators of the murderous crimes occurring there. Fear of reprisal, with only the Americans (mostly) to turn to for help may have something to do with this.



I think the new government will be seen as legitimate as long as enough Iraqi's participate in the process. If they feel as if they had a say in the outcome, they will more likely feel that they have a say in what fate befalls them. I don't think it will devolve into Civil War.

As an aside, did you know that the UN is only planning on sending 25 observers to help with the election? In contrast, over 300 were sent to East Timor.

Well, it is obvious you have never served in the armed forces, or are familiar with combat.

This is war. People die. Bush made a choice to go in after exhausting 12 years of UN Sanctions that did nothing but enrich Saddam and Co. Congress voted for the war, and he went the extra mile with the UN.

I do not dismisst the pain, tragedy, and suffering of war. I should know, I saw men die in combat in Gulf War 1, and was there myself. I don't think any politician, however, , takes lightly what has happened. Yeah, Don Rumsfield used an autopen, he also visited Mosul tonight. And The President has made MANY unpublicized visits to Bethesda and Walter Reed, without press coverage. Clinton would have eaten that up.

Do you think they sleep easy at night? That they don't think about the men and women who have not come home. They are not subhuman.

We are there. We have a job to do, and to finish. And the reality is we do the tough work needed, and move forward with combating those who oppose the concepts of freedom and justice, or we whine and snivel about what is going on and then turn tail.

Support our troops, and if Americans want beheadings and killing of women and children as suicide bombers in this nation, we can become isolationist and try to follow the same path other Americans wanted before World War 1 and 2. Or we can fight.

Sherman was right. War is hell. It is not pretty. And this is not a MTV war that is over in 30 minutes. Some things are worth fighting for.

First post so be nice



Why should the deaths of these brave men and women be in vain? If soldiers are going to die for an election (assuming this is the reason du juor for this war) shouldn't we make sure it gets done right? I'm not asking for the perfect election and I don't expect everyone to be happy with the outcome but we still have some major obstacles to overcome first. If we want to truly honor the efforts of fallen soldiers, we should delay the election until we at minimum have a real official census, ensured legitimacy of voter registration, and a basic level of security for all those who wish to vote.