From the same article, other killings include 3 US soldiers in Baghdad, 2 outside Baghdad, 1 in Balad, 1 in Anbar province, 8 Iraqi military and 2 civilians in Baghdad (truck bomb), and on and on and on ad nauseum.

Election workers’ identities are being kept secret, polling places have not yet been identified, equipment will not be transported until the last minute (assuming, I suppose, that the vehicles used to transport it will be able to arrive at their destinations on time and unscathed).

This source claims that the insurgents now number more than the total US military in Iraq (over 200,000).

Can an election be considered successful if violence continues, and election workers, voters, and elected officials are targeted as well as occupying forces?

Since, as bin Hussein points out, military action has not worked, is it time to rethink the strategy in Iraq?

We will find out soon how successful the elections are. I think many places will not have much of a turn out, but most of the country will come out to vote. The most powerful cleric in Iraq has issued a fatwa to vote.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/10478605.htm



My prediction : A susbtantial turnout for many parts of the country while the voilent ridden area's will have a very low turnout. Can they be considered successful? It's a step in the right direction.

Can an election be considered successful if violence continues, and election workers, voters, and elected officials are targeted as well as occupying forces?

Yes. Of course it can be considered successfull. Indeed there are already many voices claiming the US war in Iraq is a success! Even here at AD, lordhelmet has made the that claim, despite the year and a half of violence and terrorism that has followed the initial coalition assault.


Since, as bin Hussein points out, military action has not worked, is it time to rethink the strategy in Iraq?

No. Its too late for that. The US coalition is locked into a course of action now that it cannot abandon without catastrophic consequences for the people of Iraq. The only hope now is that the Sunni minority will not rebel against the undoubtable Shia victory of the upcoming elections, and that the Shia majority can remain free of Iranian influence.

Either way it looks grim. But at least by staying the course, the USA cannot be justly accused of having turned its back on the people of Iraq.

Can an election be considered successful if violence continues, and election workers, voters, and elected officials are targeted as well as occupying forces?

Two points. First, how exactly does violence have anything to do with the success (or failure) of the election? As long as people vote, the election is successful. Perhaps if enough people don't vote, then the election loses credibility....which is what those perpetrating the violence are hoping for. Which brings up the second point...even hinting at anything less than successful elections justifies and furthers the actions of those committing the terrorism. Is that anyone's goal?

Since, as bin Hussein points out, military action has not worked, is it time to rethink the strategy in Iraq?

I would second the opinion of Moif. There are really only three available alternatives: continue with the current strategy, pull out, or increase military action. Regardless of one's opinion of the current strategy, it is pretty universally accepted that pulling out is the worst possible scenario. So, if you want to see a change, the only available recourse is to increase military activity. If someone proposes a better option than the current strategy, I'm more than willing to examine it. So far, though, I haven't seen it.

Moif and Hobbes, does it make sense that more of the same will engender a different result? Isn't the definition of insanity (or is it stupidity?) doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? Sure, we can throw more guns and tanks and whatnot at the problem, but it doesn't look like it has solved anything in the last 3 years; on the contrary, it has created a much bigger problem.

Maybe "successful" wasn't the right word to use. The insurgents have already targeted the election workers they have been able to identify; doesn't it follow that they will attacking polling places?

OK, I'll concede that, but I'll pose another question: if it were you, and you knew that the mere act of showing up at a polling place puts your life at serious risk, would you do it? Personally, I wouldn't feel the righteousness of casting a vote is worth it.

DaffyGrl

It doesn't matter. What matters is that the situation does not become any worse, and that is what will happen if the USA does not continue its policy. The moment the US pulls out without a stable Iraqi military/ government in place, we'll see a civil war that will echo Yugoslavia. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's may be killed.

As things stand now, the people of Iraq have no voice so we really don't know who they'd vote, or what they really think about the US/ coalition forces in their country.

An awful lot of the terrorist attacks appear to be fuelled by outside agenda's, (Iran/ al qaeda) and I am not totally convinced that the majority of the people of Iraq are hostile towards the presence of US and coalition troops. I think the majority of them, with common sense will admit that the only thing keeping their nation together right now is the muscle of the United States. Take that away, and they must understand and accept that their nation will descend into the same internal, ethnic violence that spawned Saddam Hussein back in the bad old days.

We simply cannot allow that to happen.


They will do all they can to destroy the chance for peace. They understand full well that once a people have tasted true freedom, then they will want more and more of it.

It is this freedom that these Islamic zealots fear. They have seen what democracy has done to christianity in Europe, and also to a good many Americans. They fear democracy far far more than we fear their ridiculous medieval concept of religion!


I don't know. It depends on how great a risk I was running. If I believed I would be killed then no I wouldn't. If I believed there was a risk, but I shared it with a good many others then I still am unsure. It would depend on my mood and how brave I was feeling on that particular day.

One thing is for certain. If Denmark's democracy is ever threatened. I'll not sit idly by. I'll fight and defend my freedom and the freedom for my (as yet unborn) child.

Can an election be considered successful if violence continues, and election workers, voters, and elected officials are targeted as well as occupying forces?
I tend to agree with Cordesman's conclusions in his latest paper Praying for Luck: The Real Meaning of Iraqi Elections:

Of course, if the elections are completely boycotted by the Sunni population, that will also cast serious doubt upon the legitimacy of the IIG. Its damned if you do, damned if you don't at that point.

Since, as bin Hussein points out, military action has not worked, is it time to rethink the strategy in Iraq?
We definitely have to relook our strategy and our fundamental operational methods in Iraq. That does not mean a pullout. It means making a serious effort to change our way of conducting operations in Iraq. If you haven't already, read this article in the latest Economist: When Deadly Force Bumps into Hearts and Minds.

A total pullout of US forces from Iraq would leave a power vacuum that would be exploited by the worst elements in Iraqi society that would not only result in further chaos in Iraq, but would destabilize the entire region. Yet many of our current methods only exacerbate rather than mitigate the insurgency. Not to mention that during the first year of the insurgency we failed miserably to recognize many key aspects of the developing situation until they reached crisis proportions. We must stay the course - but we have to do it in a far more effective manner. Of course this includes training and equipping the nascent Iraqi military and security forces to do their job effectively. But I don't see them being able to do that until well into 2006 at the earliest.

First, I think what must be understood is that this is a classic example of choosing from amongst a set of bad alternatives. As Moif also argued, as bad as one might say the current situation is, it must be evaluated whether or not any of the potential alternatives wouldn't in fact be worse. In this case, I think they would be. As bad as the terrorism might seem now...can you even begin to imagine what it would be like if we weren't there to stem it? Remember that most of those fighting against the process are of the minority party there...they would literally be willing to do anything to gain and/or keep power, and the only real way they would have of doing it would be to brutally exterminate any who opposed them. This would be many many magnititudes worse than the current situation.



This is where what constitues a 'successful' election becomes important. It's not necessary for everyone to vote--heck, half of the US electorate doesn't vote. It's only necessary for some of the people to vote. This just has to be enough people to be able to portray the election as valid. So, it is more a perceptual battle than anything else. First, to entice people to actually vote, and second, to convince them that the outcome of the election, whatever it is, will indeed be the formation of their government. As for a different strategy, there have been ads prepared that are directly targeted at these issues. Apparently, there had been a lot of confusion over exactly what would be voted on, and why it was important. These ads address those issues, which I think is vitally important--for the election to be successful certainly requires that the people understand what is being voted on, on how to vote. I would hope, but do not know, that it is also being conveyed that whatever the outcome of the election is, that is what will be done. This sends a message to those hoping to support the insurgents that their efforts are indeed worse than futile...for resorting to terrorism rather than going to polls themselves will only lessen their impact on the election, not heighten it.

One final point, DaffyGirl. While I understand your perception of things continuing to be stuck in the same morass, I think the election itself is a vital turning point that answers the question of why would things change. Post-election, it should become increasingly difficult for the insurgents to claim to be fighting the U.S. occupation--they would instead be fighting directly against Iraq. This should make it more difficult for them to garner any additional support. I believe getting to this very point is what has driven U.S. policy in the area...neither wanting to allow too much insurgent activity, nor cracking down too hard and creating more support for them. So, one should start to see signs of things changing after the election. If not, then your question becomes very pertinent indeed. Which won't necessarily mean a reduction in insurgent activity...they would be fighting perhaps even harder than, as a trapped animal would. Rather, monitoring public sentiment post-election should yield valuable information about the success or failure of the election.

True, but what about those who were unable, or afraid to vote? Won’t they feel disgruntled and disenfranchised if things don’t go their way? Somehow I don’t think it would be like here in the US where those who don’t vote should just grin and bear it because they didn’t feel strongly enough to make their opinion known; these are people who have never experienced a democratic government, and religious affiliations mean more than political ones.


This is an excellent point. I truly hope that is the case (because maybe then we can leave 'em to it and bring our troops home). But, like I mentioned above, the whole Sunni, Shi’a and Baathist divisions will make that even more difficult. Whichever affiliation wins, the other two are going to be unhappy. And without stereotyping, I don’t think it is too difficult to see where that will lead, if the insurgency these last few years is any indication.

Edited to add this news item:

The irony of the upcoming Iraqi election is that the outcome will not promote democracy. Who ever is elected will quickly use their "mandate" to grant themselves authortarian powers. Prime Minister Allawi issued marshall law and other repressive policies once he was appointed, but the US has not allowed more extensive action because it is refusing to admit that democracy simply will not work in the immediate future in Iraq.

The only way the Iraqi government can eliminate the insurgency is through widespread repression of all Iraqi citizens. That means ignoring rights and consolidating power. It has nothing to do with "tasting freedom" and everything to do with masking a authortarian government with an election. That is why the US is so determined to have the election go through. The US can claim that they succeeded in spreading democracy in Iraq, while also giving themselves the power (with the permission of the new Iraqi government of course) to crack down on the insurgents.

And I think a majority of the Iraqi citizens want this. I've heard numerous Iraqi citizens talk about how although they don't miss Saddam, they do miss the security he provided.

Allawi's party will win the election and he will be able to institute the semi-authortarian govenment he has always wanted to implement. Other political actors like Chalabi and Sadr will be able to plant themselves in the govenment, cloak themselves with a sense of legitimacy, and then continue to enrich themselves through every form of corruption they are capable of.

This was bound to be happen. These radicals or extremist will never get tired of these things. They are not peaceful and they will do it again. They hate Americans and will do it again. I can't believe why there is so much hatred in thier heart for America. I also read an interesting post at Liberty.com forums that had Dr. Bowman's statements from what he wrote to President Bush after the 9/11 attack. If Dr. Bowman is right then I can say our Govt. should stop mingling into others affairs.

Letsgetreal

Can an election be considered successful if violence continues, and election workers, voters, and elected officials are targeted as well as occupying forces?

Violence does not in and of itself determine non-success of the elections. It's the type of violence, where this violence occurs and how widespread it is which matters. More important is whether or not those elected are considered viable rulers. Ultimately, it's not elections but those ruled who determine this. The ex-Ba'athist insurgents will not "roll over" when the Shi'a are in power. Those insurgents want their power back and will do what it takes to get it back. Of course, not all insurgents are ex-Ba'athists.

Anyway, elections will be "partially successful" in so far that those who do vote in the calmer Shi'a/Kurdish parts of Iraq will do so fairly. The Sunni parts of Iraq will be a mess though, and no amount of wishful thinking or idealism will change that. The question is: will the Sunnis consider the election invalid? And if so, will there be even greater Sunni participation in the insurgency? And at that point, will we be willing to admit that it's a civil war not just an insurgency?

Since, as bin Hussein points out, military action has not worked, is it time to rethink the strategy in Iraq?

As both Hobbes and moif put it: we're between Iraq and a hard place. Is it worse to withdraw or to occupy? Here's what I see the solutions are from bad to worse to worst:

Bad: boost the US troop level by a factor of 3 (~450,000 soldiers)
Worse: withdraw from Iraq
Worst: continue with current troop level as we have

As Powell so eloquently put it: you break it, you buy it. If Iraq has any hope of surviving intact (or even balkanized), then there must be enough stability for a sufficient amount of time that rule of law can be reified. Elections will not magically do this (elections are entirely immaterial). Policing can do this but only if the "police" are sufficient in number.

The current administration knows though that boosting the troop level by a factor of 3 is tantamount to a draft which would be political suicide. I have no sympathy for this. We need to take personal responsibility for our actions. Sometimes this means sacrificing yourself for the greater good (like any good soldier knows). The current administration invaded Iraq; it needs to do what it takes to fix Iraq.

The distinction between real democracy (a social condition under which people have real influence on decisions that affect their lives) and mere electoral formality is elusive to Americans, who believe that the sun of political discourse rises and sets on the narrow field of issues considered in their "free" press and in their Congress. The coming elections in Iraq will not satisfy even the minimum standards of electoral formality, but if they did, it would still not convince many Iraqis, or other people in the world, that these elections were a step toward real democracy. Yet U.S. proceeds as if a veil democratic formalism, even if woven only partially, will cover up the iron fist of U.S. military occupation and oppression.

What is happening is not "criminal" violence, but an armed resistance that the U.S. military is incapable of quelling, and which will ultimately determine Iraq's future. The attempt of the U.S. government to dictate the future of Iraq, and through it that of the Middle East, has already been defeated, and many Americans realize this. It is only a matter of time until they all do.

More assassinations in Baghdad targeting election workers and police.




"Iraq and a hard place" indeed.

Interestingly enough, this has not strangled out support among Iraqis for the election.

Iraqi Officials Cite Rise Of Interest in Elections
The Sunni are more ambivalent with 40% suggesting they probably or surely wouldn't vote, but that leave 60% who are open to the idea despite calls for a boycott.

That is similar to a poll I read about the other day on the internet.

After a little searching, here is the article from an Iraqi paper:



http://www.alsabaah.com/

And this is the translation for those who cannot read Arabic:

http://www.roadstoiraq.com/?p=154

Yet another note on the determination of Iraqis to hold an election.

Under Fire, Election Workers in Iraq Are Scared but Resolute
With Sistani and Kurdish leaders strongly backing elections, and with the majority of Sunnis not yet convinced by calls for a boycott, I think it's likely that this election will happen, with a pretty good turnout I might add.

What does till threaten the elections is the thought that insurgents will launch direct attacks on voters, but it is clear that this with only strangle their popularity further. The point has been reached were the insurgents are forced to target individuals that are held in high esteem by the majority of Iraq, note Aide to Iraqi Shia leader killed the only effect this can have is to shrivel their already insufficient support.