Allow me to clarify. There was a strong turnout according to the conditions you noted. Shiites and Kurds who together make of 80% of the country turned out in droves.
A large majority of the country did experience election success.

I don't see why you point to admitted problem areas like Mosul as an example of the rest of the country.

Might, but unlikely given that a lot of the areas left to be counted are in the North with large Kurdish populations...

Sorry, I didn't realize this was the most important part of your post. My attention was captivated by the Mosul example, so allow me to address this.

The authors statements about the constitution and Sunni voting blocks are correct, but I think he has misjudged the behavior of Sunni politicians, who aren't eager to be completely left out of the new government, or to pick a fight with several million disgruntled Shiites and Kurds.

Sunni Clerics Offer Their Cooperation
Most Sunni realize they have nothing to gain by becoming hated agitators, at 20% of the population perhaps they should accept the hand of peace when it is offered...

With stronger than expected turnout, what might these elections mean for the future of Iraq?

It is simply too difficult to tell. There were quite a few candidates to choose from for the offices available. So a high turnout doesn't mean much if the vote spread is wide. The true test will come when results are announced.

Does this suggest that Iraqis are, in fact, dedicated to the idea of a democratic state?

No. They just might, actually, democratically choose not to be a democratic state. You have to remember that democracy is the only option right now. You have a democratic country in military control of the country telling them that they will vote. Right now, they may like the idea. Again, the true test will be when results are announced. How Iraqis react to losing an election will say quite a bit about how dedicated they are to being a democratic state.

Did anyone stay up to watch the coverage?

I caught a bit of the coverage in the morning.

As for how the Sunni will react... Actions speak louder than words. There is a rather large precedent in the Middle East of saying one thing and doing another -- offering to cooperate and then getting violent. I hope this isn't the case here, but... again, time will tell.

My main problem with this Turnea is the source of your information. Sources in Iraq reported these record numbers during and after the election, but now that the votes are being tallied we are getting the real story. Every thing I have read in the news in recent days is about how those numbers were greatly over estimated and I imagine they will continue to come down as votes are counted.

How can you claim the election was a huge success when you don't even know how many people turned out, their demographics or even the result of the election yet? It seems to me that celebration may be a bit premature, and the "facts" that all of us have right now are not accurate.

I'm glad Iraq had an election and I really hope they continue to move forward, but you'll forgive me if I don't immediately swallow the line from the Bush administration that it was a huge success, and there was an extremely large turnout.

Was the Iraqi Election a Success?

Heres a few examples:

Conservative, civilian casualty estimates for this election were between 1000 and 5000 dead. Last I heard the number was 44. That is CLEARLY a success.

Many worried that the fear of "insurgent" attacks would keep the majority of voters away. Even the most conservative estimate I have seen so far puts the turnout nation wide at 57%, that too is a success (what was our last turnout?).

On the day with the most to be gained politically through terrorist actions, the "insurgents" failed to organize themselves and operate well enough to do the kind of damage that we all expected. That is definitely a success.

The Iraqi military and police, operated bravely and with skill in repelling the various attacks that were actually perpetrated. This shows both their willingness risk their lives for their country, to do their jobs and their ever improving level of training and competence. That is surly a success and my hat is off to all of those brave defenders.

Iraqi people were dancing in the streets, hugging Iraqi and US soldiers alike and celebrating for hours, as can be seen in countless reports for all over the country. This increased level of good will is most definitely a success.

Was this as good as it could be? No. But it was a heck of alot better then expected. Were there reports of election irregularities? Yes, but no more then are seen in any countries elections including our own. Were there groups that felt disenfrancised? yes, just as there are similar groups of people in every free nation.

Iraq is certainly not over, but this is election was clearly a success and a wonderful first step to that conclusion. Just the determination shown by the Iraqis that bravely remained in line to vote even when their area saw "insurgent" violence speaks volumes of the courage of the Iraqi people and their determination to obtain true self-rule.

I was concerned that the Iraqis might never step to the plate. I couldn't understand their reluctance to work to obtain a better life. I am very happy to see that my concerns were unwarranted.

In my first post on this thread, I said the reported turnout seemed way too high.

I knew darn well that the majority of the Iraqi citizens did not vote.

And those that did, had no clue for whom or for what they were voting for.

The media's dizzying celebratory reports were only an indication that the Pro-War crowd has had nothing to chortle about over Iraq since Saddam's statue was toppled.

They NEEDED another reason to desperately prove themselves right.

But now comes the really hard truth.

The Shi'ite Muslim parties have taken a strong lead in the polling.

Which means that the Islamists, and not the puppets installed by Bush, will have a major hand in supposedly writing Iraq's new constitution.

Now, if this is going to a real parliamentary style government, then the party that garners the most votes is the one that determines who the Prime Minister is.

Because that's the way it is in real parliamentary governments throughout Europe.

And the Bushies had better accept this.

Because if they don't, then this whole election thing is as I said it was:

A friggin' sham.

So then, other then a city or two (I sure we can find a city or two in America where the majority did not vote as well) where do you get the idea the the majority in the COUNTRY of Iraq did NOT vote in this NATIONAL election?



This would seem to me to be an example of Democracy in action. Kind of hard to support the argument that Iraq will be a puppet regime if the party least supported by the US is the party that comes to power.




I couldn't agree more. I just happen to think that this was a given and that the Administration (that I did NOT support in the last election BTW) had no intention of trying to force an "acceptable leader on the Iraqi people.

With stronger than expected turnout, what might these elections mean for the future of Iraq?
Higher than expected? Says who?

Nobody has even the slightest clue of the turnout. Somebody is throwing out numbers as if they were estimates of Saddam's WMD stockpiles.

This is a carbon copy of the 1967 Vietnam elections where they said it was a 82% turnout. And we see how meaningful THAT was.

But as far as the comparisons to our elections, that's crap. Most people here don't register to vote because they're too lazy and apathetic. However, the turnout of registered voters in very high.

In Iraq, many couldn't vote. Not because they're lazy and apathetic, but because they like being vertical.

Does this suggest that Iraqis are, in fact, dedicated to the idea of a democratic state?
Why wouldn't anybody with two brain cells to rub together want a democratic state? This is like asking if we're dedicated to the idea of having money. The real question is, are these people ready to die for democracy. And that answer is no. That question was answered well before we invaded due to the fact we HAD to be liberators in the absence of being able to achieve our stated goal.

To be clear, the Iraqis that did go out and vote are true patriots. But even if 8 million people did vote (and mark my words - that number will be at least half before this week is out), 12-15 million didn't.

Did anyone stay up to watch the coverage?
For a little while. Even though this has all the makings of a sham molded into a success, I still hope it succeeds. We have nothing to gain by failure in Iraq.

Estimates are not totally out of the blue, they knew how many registered voters. They could compare to the count of those coming in and do the math.

Skepticism is one thing, I sense sour grapes...

These insurgents ain't the Viet Cong, they have less power and no discernable message of hope that most Iraqis can agree to.


...and yet again the turnout of registered voters will be high, under conditions that would have most Americans whimpering in their basements.


That's absolute nonsense, thousands of them died in failed uprisings, repeatedly. They couldn't win because Saddam had no qualms using wholesale slaughter to end any rebellion.

More than fifty died for democracy in this election.


I'll mark the words all right, one of us gets an "I told you so"

How is this a carbon copy of the Vietnam elections? Could you clarify your comparison? Let's see, supposedly there's 200,000 insurgents, the more we kill them, they more people that join there cause. When we kill all of them they will be invincible. Let's average how many people are killed every day in Iraq as a result of "the insurgents" (even though many of them have no political goal, they just want money), lets say 20 people. Everyday 20 people are killed in Iraq as a result of the "massive bloody insurgency that is going to take over the country just like in Vietnam". Well they dont have popular support, out of their unlimited manpower they pulled off.... a few attacks on election day, 10-15 attacks maybe? Thats HUGE, such a large force, they can manage to send out about 30 guys to shoot some mortars and one or two to blow themselves up. While you focus on the 20, ill focus on the big picture. I can make a list a page long of links with construction project's happening today, every single poll ever taken in the country show the insurgents do not have popular support (you focus on the 20), insurgents are captured frequently (you focus on the 20), the Iraqi police grow daily (you focus on the 20), they even had to turn down some applicants because there were so many of them (you focus on the 20), there's over 100,000 Iraqi police and national guardsmen who now have choppers, APC's, tanks, and ships are starting to stream in (you focus on the 20), but the insurgent's will repeat Vietnam, these elections are a striking example of that.

They control none of the country, they dont have popular support, and one of the most important days for the new government they failed miserably to stop it, I know im living in wonderland because alot of people have a fixation of focusing on the 20 not the country. Yet somehow they don't control any of the country. There was no massive coordinated attack on election day, it didn't happen, next year when a president is picked by the elected parliment, the insurgents will fail to stop that.

1-I don't know if you can place a lot of faith in turn out, what matters is that turnout at least be 50% across ethnic lines, which occured only in two of three cases. The Kurds and Shiites showed up in record numbers, but the Sunni numbers were a complete joke. The Washington Times noted this disparity in reporting:

-article

I wish that number was higher, if it were, we would have some evidence that Sunnis are beginning to place their faith and confidence in the electoral process as opposed to taking up arms. It's clear in this case that the puny turnout in their areas shows that this election will not matter for them. Of course, I'm thrilled that the Shiites, who have been oppressed for a very long time, have the opportunity to seize the reigns of that nation. At the same time, they will definitely have to try and accomodate the Sunnis. Perhaps offering up one of the two vice presidential spots to a Sunni?

2.)As stated above, it means that Shiites and Kurds are dedicated to that idea and that we have a clear slice of the majority. The problem has to do with the Sunnis and convincing them, maybe not their leadership, that elections are the way to go. This election meant little to them. The next one will definitely be the most important one for them.

3.)Like Overland, I'm old, married, and have two kids both in diapers-I'm lucky to have time to sleep!.

Here's where the voters' choice went :

1. Chiites : 48%
2. Kurds : 25%
3. current party in power : 13%

This will surely bring interesting developments to the Iraqi politics, I'm sure.

I do so love these moments


Shiites Win Most Votes in Iraq, Election Results Show

If one does the math that is well over 8-million and hardly half the previous numbers so the "prophets of doom" can calm down about the general turnout it was an unexpected success.

Sorry Turnea but some parallels are hard to ignore.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/vietnam.asp
Document types: article
ISSN/ISBN: 03624331
Text Word Count 521





Just how successful was that?

Large numbers turn out-- good I agree--yet what part in that do you think Al Sistani played? He is the major driving force for having the elections at this time. I gurantee you the Whitehouse doesn't like where the shift of power is going to balance out, they wanted Allawi--and he appaently is just popular enough to get elected dog catcher. Do you think the American people will be truly satisfied if the Constitution the Iraqis create is based on Sharia?

If the Iraqis do indeed decide to go the Sharia route--even if they do keep the mullahs from direct control--will the end result be any different?

As the Shia begin to assume power the Sunnis-- I believe -- will feel forced to increase their efforts. What happens when inevitably the Kurds find they will not be allowed to retain control over the northern oil fields?
Turkey has threatened military intervention to prevent an independent and oil-rich Kurdish state, they are afraid it will lead to the Kurds demanding their indepndence--and I think the Kurds think the oil fields are theirs because of the aid they gave us during the initial invasion.
Does this really lead to Peace Love and Understanding?

Sure...

First, if you take the 10 years the Vietnam war took and the 50K lives lost, that averages roughly 13 a day. So, from a mathematical standpoint, Iraq is worse.

Secondly, many of the ones killed in Vietnam probably would have not died if they had the medical technology we have today. In other words, if we had the same technology and resources we had in Vietnam, many more would be dead in this war.

Lastly, you can't ignore the casualties who have been maimed beyond imagination- severe head injuries, missing limbs, etc. There are many thousands of Americans and Iraqis. Now, stack on the innocent casualties that didn't exist at this level in Vietnam (because the jungles of Vietnam were not populated like downtown Bagdad) that numbers perhaps as much as 100,000 (nobody knows because it's too unsafe to go out and look).

This war is way worse. The "insurgency" we were fighting was not bigger than our forces and they wore uniforms. But they still kicked our butts for the same reasons:

1. Politics - the US wasn't fighting to win in Vietnam in the 60's. We don't know who we are fighting in 2005. There is a pool of 1.6 billion Muslims to pull from.
2. Non-existent local armies - Vietnam started the same way. Send in advisors to help train their army and when that didn't work, send in more troops. South Vietnam had a local army that couldn't defend itself from an attack by Anna Nicole Smith. The Iraqs couldn't beat her agent.

So, in 1967, in the effort to spread the cheer (same complaints back then - media only reporting the bad), they had an election that was too bogus for words. It didn't matter in the end, because we left as a defeated enemy. The communists overran the south as soon as we left (actually, while were leaving).

And what was the reason we decided to involve ourself in that war (starting with the C Turner Joy shooting at it's own wake for 3 days and claiming it was enemy submarines)? Because if communism were to overrun South Vietnam, it would spread to the world and we would be doomed.

40 years later, we see it made no difference and Vietnam is back to being a tourist trap. Oops.

My problem with this election is it's not representative. You may wish to ignore it, but there is a civil war going on in Iraq. 8 million people apparently did vote (note: if these numbers are legitimate, I am hereby eating my words Turnea), out of 14 million who registered to vote, out of 20 million people. The entire Sunni population for all intents and purposes didn't vote (2% of the vote in some well-populated areas) and they are bombing the snot out of everything that looks related to American support. Everyday, more Iraqis are turning against us. Many people who wanted to vote didn't vote. We would invalidate results here if people here in the US were systematically (versus what may happen incidentally) denied a vote due to security conditions.

But what REALLY cracks me up, is that we took control from a secular government and replaced it with a bunch of Muslims. I can't remember what leader we've ever helped put into place that didn't turn against us at some point in time.

And now we're supposed to feel safer.

Dayton, I don't want to interrupt your argument with facts, but just so we're all clear on the math. Tragic as each of these deaths may be, the magnitude is not close.
USA in Vietnam for 10 years (3650 days) - 58,000 dead American soldiers = 16 per day
USA in Iraq for 23 months (690 days) - 1,460 dead American soldiers = 2 per day

Every comparison to Viet Nam is silly anyway, because here were are fighting a terrorist group and ex-regime, ex-con insurgents, whereas in Viet Nam we were fighting a proxy war, with an actual superpower (the USSR) largely funding and diplomatically supporting the opposition as a mechanism to check the US and lesserly China. The whole Iraq = Viet Nam thing is just a way to criticize any US military action in whatever country in whatever context. Remember, Afghanistan was going to be Viet Nam too, according to Seymour "it's a quagmire" Hersh just 8 days before we marched into Kabul.

I have patiently been waiting for the real results of this election..and looks like democracy did in fact win

With stronger than expected turnout, what might these elections mean for the future of Iraq?
I think it shows that Iraqis are patriots, are interested in this democracy thing and are willing to risk their lives to achieve it. Which was something I had been fearing was not the case prior.

Does this suggest that Iraqis are, in fact, dedicated to the idea of a democratic state? I hope so...but we will see. There is a lot more to a functioning democracy than just elections. The Iraqi people are going to have to do a lot of bargaining amongst one another now..political discourse and alliances are new concepts to this country so what happens from now on should be interesting.


Yeah secular uhhuh sure. Just coincidence during Saddam's reign that the Shiites and Kurds were mass murdered, tortured and repressed..but this was all done secularly.
Also America is supposed to be in Iraq to help put into place democracy..not leaders.


Do you have something to present this argument..I mean I know you guarantee it but can I read some kind of certificate or something ?
I think the US was and has always been well aware of Allawi's popularity or lack of it and Sistani's obvious power. Just simple math eludes to who was going to win out big here. Yes Sistani has said he does support Islamic law but the Shiites have not won a majority and will have to build political alliances and will have to bargain with the other parties to get what needs to be done in Iraq done...which is writing a constitution. The second in line is the Kurds..thankfully..and I believe they are also Americas ally in Iraq. The Sunnis are not and I am not surprised they did not participate as they know they no longer hold power now that Iraq is turning Democratic. They still feel their power lies in violence and I just hope the Iraqi people keep moving forward leaving this belief farther and farther behind them.

The big question is how influence does Iran have on Sistani?

Gonna Ditto bucket here, the "Puppet Government" theory that the US was maneuvering for their "stooge" Allawi to win is flawed to an almost painfully obvious extent.

Anyone paying attention could have told you Sistani's supporters would get the majority.

As for Sistani himself...

What Sistani Wants

No it leads to politics, which is an entirely different animal.

I don't believe for one minute the results of this election.

I believe the Bush administration, which certainly has experience with manipulating elections, did its darndest to insure that Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani did not win an outright majority.

This, despite all the post-election polls showing that Sistani's United Iraqi Alliance was well ahead and would take more than half of the seats in the new Iraqi assembly.

Because that's what most of those joyous post-election stories said.

The election proved nothing, because half of the people in Iraq who voted were illiterate and had no real clue who or what they were voting for.

The Bushies tried to cheat to help their man, Ilyad Allawi, by allowing anyone who claimed to be an Iraqi to vote here in the United States. Very few of those ballots went for Sistani's UIA.

The real winners were those who were in favor of this war, because it gave them a full day to scream and leap and slap each other on the back.

The Bush administration thinks it has won a major victory here.

But all it is has done is move Iraq closer to an Islamic republic.

The Kurds will likely declare their independence in the Kirkuk region in coming months, fully infuriating Turkey and sowing the seeds for a future civil war.

al-Sistani knows full well that all he needs to do is to bide his time.

His United Iraqi Alliance will demand that any new constitution fully enshrine Islam as the state religion and that many of this religion's precepts form the basis of much of Iraq's civil law.

In Basra, women are already forced to don the veil, which they didn't have to do under Saddam.

All over Iraq, many liquor stores and beauty salons have been forced to close down.

And this is just the beginning.

Like I have said before this invasion began, dethrone Saddam, and the Shi'ites will end up running the country.

And they will eventually install an Islamic republic which will draw very close to Iran.

Just the nightmare envisioned in one of Tom Clancey's novels.

The comments coming out from Iraq this morning on the morning shows were pretty positive from leaders of all three ethnic factions in Iraq. There did seem to be a genuine committment on the part of these leaders to work together to form a democratic Iraq. There also seemed to be a genuine pride (deservedly so) in the courage of the Iraqi people who risked their lives to cast their votes. Pretty positive stuff.

I think it's going to be fascinating to watch what happens there over the coming weeks and months as the new government works to form coalitions, determine a leadership and write a new constitution. History in the making? Could be, I hope so.