Like most Americans I slept through one of the most monumental events in recent history.

Iraqis Brave Bombs to Vote in Their Millions
Seems all the Prophets of Doom were napping as well, even our normally pessimistic news reports seem pretty jovial.

Amid Attacks, a Party Atmosphere on Baghdad's Closed Streets

So...

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

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

Did anyone stay up to watch the coverage?

[B][B][B]
So...
[b]
With stronger than expected turnout, what might these elections mean for the future of Iraq? [/B][/B][/B]

There are many challenges ahead for Iraq, but this election will serve as a great launching pad. Early estimates are a 72% turnout. Incredible! I believe the highest ever in the US was about 63%. How about those who walked 13 miles to vote!!!

I hope the Iraqis gain confidence enough to finally turn on the insurgents. There is strength in numbers.

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

No doubt about it. Iraqis have gained the admiration and respect of the free world.


Did anyone stay up to watch the coverage? [/B]

No, but I awoke early and tuned in with my coffee. Something I never do.

[/quote]

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

Hopefully this will be a sign that Iraqis are willing and able to step forward and take care of their own needs. It certainly creates a good feeling for those like me who were (or are) there. I am routing for their success on a daily basis. I want to see Iraq, run by Iraqis for Iraqis, and I want to see all of our people, as well as all of those from other nations who are there, go home.

As middle eastern countries go, Iraqis are very well educated. That is definately in their favor for the future. I wonder what sort of government, and laws will finally be in place there. I hope for a truly free nation, but I will be satisfied with a nation that is run, the way the people voted for it to run where Iraqis have had the opportunity of self-determination. After all, considering the history of Iraq under Saddam, it is hard to imagine that it could get worse.

You also have to wonder, considering the nature of insurgent attacks in Iraq in general, if the mortar attack was targeted at voting, or just another attack by the insurgency? There certainly was no massive effort to disrupt the election, kill voters, etc. Could it be that the insurgents were busy voting themselves?

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

To early to tell, and of course the other issue is the definition of a democratic state. There certainly showed the courage to stand and be counted in the fact of a ton of violent rhetoric (that they had no way of knowing that it would turn out to be impotent). It remains to be seen what kind of government will be established

BRavo for them!! In the end, the state of Iraq may not be a democratic nation as we envision it, but at least it's leadership will be democratically chosen (assuming no hanging chads and the like ).

Did anyone stay up to watch the coverage?

Your kidding right? I'm married, and old!! LOL

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

I think it bodes well for Iraq's future. It's difficult at this point to tell any specifics on whaat direction their new government will take them, but at least the Iraqi people have participated in the process. That's always a good thing.


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

Absolutely! This is an incredibily strong statement by the people that they want a voice. There are times in the US when people don't care to vote because the weather is bad, or the lines are too long or they have better things to do. I can't imagine what our turnout would be if one ran the risk of being shot or blown up just for voting. The Iraqi people showed up in what appear to be pretty big numbers. That's not only dedication to the democratic process, it's also great courage. That's a big part of the stuff of democracy and the Iraqi people are proving they have the right stuff.


Did anyone stay up to watch the coverage?

Actually, I did for awhile. My fiance didn't get home from her newscasts until around midnight Pacific time and we stayed up for an hour or so watching some of the early reports coming in from Iraq. What can I say? We're news junkies.

First, the 72% turnout sounds way too high.

That figure seems to have sprung from the minds of NeoCons desperate to put a decent spin on what is acknowledged by many to be a terrible military miscalculation.

What does this bode for the future of Iraq? More occupation, that's what.

Nothing will change. Does anyone think, gee, they held an election and that's it? That the insurgents are going to put down their weapons and go cry in a corner?

They want their country back and free of foreign troops who don't speak their language, worship their God and who routinely kill and brutalize their countrymen and women.

Are the Iraqis dedicated to a democratic state? No more so than Israel's Likud Party is dedicated to a Palestinian State. The Iraqi people have no concept of democracy. This is not only all new to them, it has been forced on them. People forget that.

Did I stay up to watch the coverage? No. I'm not all that interested in democracy in Iraq. I am more concerned that it's missing here at home.

The first premise for this war was that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD's.

The second premise was that Iraq was somehow complicit in the 9-11 attacks, as evidenced by the continuing mentioning of Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda in the same breath by countless White House officials.

Even when it had been decisively proven and admitted by Condi Rice, President Bush himself and Colin Powell that Saddam had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks, Dick Cheney continued to lie and say that it was so.

When those two claims turned out to be wishful thinking, it then became "we're invading to save the Iraqi people from Saddam's crimes against humanity."

An excuse which conveniently omits the fact that Saddam committed his worst atrocities when he was an ally and agent of the Reagan administration.

The line that the U.S. is bringing democracy to the region is a bad joke. The only people in U.S. history who had to brave bombs and bullets to try to vote were African-Americans.

And similar to the case of African-Americans in which many election outcomes were determined beforehand, the Bush administration guaranteed that the Sunnis would be under-represented and that the Kurds in the North would have their own rump state.

Before the war, Bush swore a partioning of Iraq would never happen.

I do believe the election is pivotal because it took place even though most Iraqis were clearly worried about the threats of violence.

The U.S. military had to practically lock down the entire country, seal its borders, force people to stay indoors and demand that no one drive.

I don't call that democracy. That's a police state.

All over Iraq, polling places were targeted, a suicide bomber blew himself up on a bus filled with would-be voters, there was hardly any campaigning and most of the people eligible to vote had no idea who they were voting for.

That's not democracy. That's mass confusion.

Any democracy imposed by an invading army is still a dictatorship, I don't care who is told they're voting for it.

72% turnout? Yeah, right.

This from Iyad Allawi, the man placed in power by the White House, who wants to hold on to his cushy job and his ability to steer multi-million reconstruction contracts to his friends and family.

I'll believe in a 72% turnout when Bush & Co. prove to me that Saddam possessed WMD's and was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden.

Or when Diebold & Co. can produce an electronic voting machine that can leave a paper trail, just like their ATM's, ticket machines and cash registers do.

I'm happy the election has been held. Great. Allawi can stay interim president.

When are the troops coming home?

So...

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

Wait and see when the constitution is voted on. Just 3 provinces can nix it and there are more than enough sunni ones for that.

Does this suggest that Iraqis are, in fact, dedicated to the idea of a democratic state?
Wait and see. The insurgents may just be waiting to see who is elected and then attack them.I thing the insurgents are waiting to see who is elected and then will target them relentlessly.If the government cant protect itself it surely cant protect the average joe.......................Right?
No doubt about it. Iraqis have gained the admiration and respect of the free world.


Did anyone stay up to watch the coverage? tongue.gif

No.Me missing it live would not alter a thing. I cant vote.

With stronger than expected turnout, what might these elections mean for the future of Iraq?
The turnout is somewhere between the AP's reporting of 72& and Al-Jazeera's 43%. All in all not too bad for the situation Iraq is currently in.


Does this suggest that Iraqis are, in fact, dedicated to the idea of a democratic state?
In my mind, it would have to indicate it. I believe democracy to be the natural state for all humans. Unfortunately, not all humans are able to experience it, and the learning curve is often steep and dangerous. I do wonder incredulously however, at the those in the media and elsewhere who are nearly excited at any instance of bad news coming out of Iraq. Their hatred for Bush overwhelms their desire for Iraqi's to have even a glimmer of a chance at true freedom. They would criticize these small steps towards democracy, but would equally criticize if these steps weren't being taken. Small pathetic people who want this to be Bush's boondoggle so badly, they in not so many words proclaim they would rather see a people enslaved.
Let's look at the available, feasible options:
a. No elections whatsoever, the US is proclaimed imperialistic.
b. UN sponsored elections, hmm, they must be busy in Darfur....oh wait.....
c. Total US pullout, civil war, chaos. no elections......the US didn't act responsibly.

In the minds of these small people, the US will always be the bad guy, when it comes to democracy in Iraq. Because if the US was to be seen as the 'good guy', their side couldn't claim the moral high ground.

These are small steps, but important ones. Fortunately, many people here and in Iraq feel the same way.

The figure comes neither from the "neo-cons" or Ayad Allawi. It comes from the Independent Iraqi Election Committee and is indeed their high-end estimate. Some are suggesting it is more like the mid sixties of eligible voters

Still enormous.
Do you have any evidence to prove it is a false claim?

I've said this in many places around this site, but I guess it bears repeating.
The "occupation" of Iraq ended months ago with the dissolution of the Coalition Provisional Authority. This has been legally recognized in UN resolutions. Not all foreign military presence can be termed occupation.

1. They understand enough for a beginning. That the leadership of their country will be determined by their votes.

2. It has not been forced on them. They could easily (and with pretty good reason, considering the threats) have not participated. Iraqis participated because they want democracy.


Sunni participation has been limited due to the actions of insurgents, even the Sunni political parties admit that. It has nothing to do with results being determined before-hand.


...and it won't. Iraqi Kurdistan will keep some degree of autonomy, but is still part of the Iraqi federal government with it's own national representatives and beholden to the one Iraqi constitution.


A democracy at war is still a democracy. Would you rather have car bombs all over the country murdering voters?


They knew the parties, if not all the individuals. A familiar story here in the states as well.


That just makes no sense.

Iraqis are choosing their representative through a free vote for the first time in fifty years, this is dictatroship.

Democracy was not imposed on Iraq, dictatorship was deposed and democracy was allowed to grow in its place.


1. Actually Allawi's ticket is not expected to be dominant. Rather a different Shiite coalition (The United Iraqi Alliance) is posed to take power.

2. The election is not for interim president. Its for an assembly to form the permanent government and constitution.

I saw a lot of accusations, but precious little evidence.

I am really saddened to see so many negative comments about the Iraqi elections All over the internet. What were people hoping for, a bloodbath instead?
Anyone who says this is all about Bush and the Americans does nothing but slap each voting Iraqi in the face. Each Iraqi bravely set out today against the violence and took a stand in order to express themselves. This is to be commended and encouraged not trivialized.

I have read numerous reports indicating that many neighbourhoods in iraq after voting are so happy! They have taken a stand for their next geenration. The insurgents, not the Americans, are the real problem
in the country. This election is not about the US controlling oil, it's about giving the
Iraqis the right to choose. We will leave Iraq in the next few years, God willing. And I pray for all those Iraqis who have the courage to stand up to the insurgents, who are the ones who are killing the Iraqi people and security forces. Wake up Europe and the rest of the world. Just because you don't like George Bush, it doesn't mean that you have to denounce this historic day. It may not be perfect, But I ask this:

If 30 percent of the vote was enough to recognize Abbas as the leader of Palestine, why is this somehow not good enough?

Sure, it isnt perfect, and is only a first step, but what do you expect with such turmoil and change? When the US held it's first elections only property holding white males could cast votes. It took many years for a true and open democracy - a government for all the people - to evolve. It is irrational to think that tomorrow the Iraqi people will have a government that matches the US system now. We fought a war for our own independence, aided by foreign powers and we
struggled through the painful and often violent formative years afterward. It was worth the struggle, and with perseverance and support, the Iraqi's will succeed. I wish them the best, and will be praying for their freedom, safety, and health in this next chapter.

They say the turnout was around 60 percent. However, 20 percent of the population boycotted the election. That indicated a strong interest in the process to me. Under rough conditions people were willing to risk their lives for a voice in the future of their country. They deserve alot of credit and admiration for that.

I did not support the war in Iraq. But I fully support the elections. I think it is too soon to declare a monumental shift in events. But images coming out of Iraq are nice to see. This seems to be a much better day than predicted. Hopefully this day will give momentum to Iraqi sovereignty determined by voices and not bullets. I wish this with all of my heart.

It is definitely good news that people turned out in large numbers to vote. Democracy has to be worked for. Many Iraqis worked today.

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

It means that Iraqis *gasp* can actually decide what they want themselves. This is something that they never had before. It means that there are people there that want freedom and that includes from us.

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

See my signature, as well as Turneas to get a glimpse at the hope many Iraqi's have for self-determination.

Did anyone stay up to watch the coverage?

A little, but it was early on and all I could hear was how the Sunnis were upset, how the ex-pats weren't voting out of protest, how the turnout was expected to be under half and how all this would illegitimize the elections, and consequently our occupation and war.

I stopped watching because I didn't want to hear such negative reporting but also because that I knew that the moment that Kurdish father of three, that Iraqi living in Dearborn, or that young student from Baghdad, the moment that they decided for themselves what they wanted, we won. We succeeded, in my opinion. Insurgents be damned, we have helped these people reclaim the right to self-determination.

Regardless of who votes or wo doesn't, regardless of who they vote for or whether or not they want us there, this is the first time in a generation or more that Iraqis have a legit choice in what they want. There are people right now who have just cast their vote for the first time, ever. There are people who have no memory of life before Saddam. Now, they do.

And if in the near future they hold a vote on whether or not we should stay, and they vote for us to leave, then God bless 'em. I hope we do, under the promise that we'll be watching from nearby, waiting for their call the moment some dopes try to screw with them.

One of the notable things that I forgot to elaborate on is the surprisingly good turnout in Sunni areas pledged by violence.
In addition to the quote in the opening post about Fallujah (go figure on that one...)


Mosul: Threats Fail, and Glitches for the Kurds
and the Arab press reaction...

Voting, Not Violence, Is the Big Story on Arab TV

... the way this day has confounded expectations is nothing short of incredible.

Incredible indeed! This reported reaction by the Arab press to the vote is in many ways even more surprising than the large turnout of voters. Perhaps worthy of a thread of it's own?

Did anyone stay up to watch the coverage?

We've had quite a few things on our agenda the past few days. I just turned on the TV and I haven't looked at today's newspaper yet.

The Detroit Free Press covered the voting in Detroit a couple days ago. (No violence was expected in Detroit. That would be newsworthy!) I haven't noticed any photos yet of George W. Bush casting his vote in this election. (I expect that he will claim another victory shortly, though.) I did read that it was a bedsheet ballot where few of the candidates were willing to campaign or publish their photos. I had no horses entered in this race, and no bets placed. In short, I had no reason to stay up and view the results.

PE's oldest son was scheduled to return from Iraq in January, but it is looking very unlikely at this point. I am afraid that I am far more interested in when will the troops return from Iraq, than in election returns in Iraq.

[quote=Passion51,Jan 30 2005, 12:14 PM]
[B][B][B]
So...
[b]
With stronger than expected turnout, what might these elections mean for the future of Iraq? [/B][/B][/B]

There are many challenges ahead for Iraq, but this election will serve as a great launching pad. Early estimates are a 72% turnout. Incredible! I believe the highest ever in the US was about 63%. How about those who walked 13 miles to vote!!!

I hope the Iraqis gain confidence enough to finally turn on the insurgents. There is strength in numbers.

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

No doubt about it. Iraqis have gained the admiration and respect of the free world.


Did anyone stay up to watch the coverage? [/B]

No, but I awoke early and tuned in with my coffee. Something I never do.

[/quote]

[/quote]

Passion51, yesterday you were saying you not only dont mind but also cheer on torturing people as hard as possible to try to extract information from them regardless of whether we know if they are innocent or not. For what? Some greater good?

Now suddenly I'm supposed to believe you care about Iraqis! LOL, I think not.

I can't predict what the elections will mean for the future of Iraq, but it certainly suggests something more positive than we've been hearing for the past several months.

It suggests that Iraqis want Democracy and are upset with the insurgents. The fact that 60+% of them voted in spite of real threats to their very lives? Incredible. I would not have imagined it would rise about 50%. They have even put Americans to shame in voter participation, but this is to be expected for their first ever Democratic vote. Congrats to all brave Iraqis who participated today. They are a true inspiration to others and made this a historic day. It has been a slap in the face to Al-Zarqwaui and his like.

As the news from Iraq continues to get better we can all say a silent prayer of thanks for all who have helped make it happen. It is heartening to see what this vote is doing for the Iraqis. And to witness their courage!

If I were on the side of the terrorists, I think I might be having second thoughts about what I'm going to be faced with in the coming months. Even the most optimistic among us never imagined the success of this election.

There is much work to be done and there will be more bloodshed. But the seeds of freedom and democracy have been planted and are beginning to grow.


Deleted reference to non-constructive post. -Amlord

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

I'm in agreement with those who applaud the courage of the Iraqi people. My most hopeful vision is that the insurgents decide to join in the political process as minority sides with voices amplified by law. I have a negative vision, but that can be shelved right now. Don't want the negative to happen, as that would elongate US presence.

There is a potential here to create a flavor of democracy/republic that works better than those tried so far. The Iraqi leadership might be smart enough to pick up on this, and I bet they are. The great issue to tackle here isn't slavery, as with the US -- it is religion.

No slam-dunk, long and dangerous path, but the show of courage is a big phew, glad that went well.

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

I'm not so sure about this as the dedication to a stable state. Time will tell.

Did anyone stay up to watch the coverage?

No way. I don't stay up for local/regional/national election returns either. Morning comes quickly enough and staying up won't change a thing.

I think they are nearly on the right track...

Shiites rule out clerics in top Iraqi leadership
If they can create a strong legal system to confront clerics when they get out of line and a strong education system they may well have solved their biggest problems, short of their friends the insurgents of course.

Yes, AM, I think in fact that setting up a Democratic Republic might indeed be the only way to solve this issue peacefully. I envision something similar to what we have here in the US, with a House and a Senate...thereby giving the minority groups sufficient power to sway governemental policy. But, we'll see how they set it up...early signs, as Turnea points out, seem to indicate they're going in the right direction. The key is in getting the Sunni on board. The one comment I heard that stood out was that turnout was higher than expected in Fallujah and other Sunni strongholds, indicating that the people there seemed to grasp that participating in the process was the best way to influence events. This is the key to democracy being successful there. I think the people will get it....and security will eventually deal with the rest.

The other thing I saw that really stood out was that US troops were clearly instructed not to intervene in the polling places...to clearly distance themselves from the election itself. I haven't heard any comments about this being a 'rigged' election; clearly, the common belief is that this is indeed Iraqi's speaking for themselves. This is also very key in their being able to move forward and set up their own government, and also critical in establishing that the insurgents are indeed fighting against Iraq, not us.

I also found the limited violence quite telling. It seems clear that the insurgents would have done everything they could to derail the elections. Yet, the overall response was very muted. Hopefully, this is a positive sign that, even before the elections, their power is not nearly as great as had been estimated, and that troops might be able to start coming home sooner rather than later.

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

What was the makeup of the turnout? From what I hear, it was mostly Shi’ia. It will be interesting to see whether the Shi’ites include the Sunnis in a true participatory role in the new government, or relegate them to meaningless, powerless positions.



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

Dedicated? Hm...don't know if I'd go that far. The turnout is a positive sign that many Iraqis do in fact want a democratic state. I think it may have more to do with wanting their lives to return to normal as quickly as possible. I wonder if it also has something to do with the election campaign aimed at convincing Iraqis to vote by showing the Americans "getting the heck outta Baghdad".

Unfortunately, it remains to be seen whether or not the religious leaders accept the election results, and if they don't, how they will use their influence. And many of the Sunnis did not vote.

Did anyone stay up to watch the coverage?

Um, nooooooo. I didn’t even stay up to watch our election coverage!

A safe bet, since the country is mostly Shia...

Kidding, I know what you're getting at. The funny part is there was far greater Sunni participation than anyone expected, even in places like Fallujah and Mosul.

If the leading parties had not stuck to their wrong-headed boycott this enormous success would have been even more useful towards setting up a democratic Iraq.

That said, I'm sure Shia leaders will stress cooperation (the most powerful ones always have). Their will be more elections for a more permanent government to come and the assembly members will take care to be balanced in the choices for the constitutional assembly.

May by the time of the permanent elections Sunni politicians will learn that making sure your own voice is not heard is a wee bit counter-productive.

Actually Shia religious leaders have been the ones pushing the hardest for a vote (I remember Sistani actually wanted elections way back in the middle of last year).

I think they will accept the results all right.

..and I seriously doubt US troops are the Iraqis biggest concern seeing as the majority of the population never come into contact with them. Security and infrastructure were big vote getters I'm sure.

With stronger than expected turnout, what might these elections mean for the future of Iraq?
They mean that there is popular support for a constitutional convention - we should remember that these elections are not to elect a formal government as such, but to elect a parliament tasked with the specific goal of constructing a constitutional settlement that takes into account the (democratically expressed) views of ordinary Iraqis.

They also indicate that the idea of democracy itself appeals to Arabs and Muslims as much as the next person. Imran Khan, the Pakistani ex-cricketer-turned-democratic-activist (let us not forget that our bestest friends in the Muslim world - Pakistan & their "President" Musharref - are a military dictatorship that ousted their democratically-elected predecessors), said on British TV last week that there is a wide and deep desire for democracy and freedom throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds. They intersect, but are not the same thing - there are non-Muslim Arabs, and non-Arab Muslims. An obvious point, but one that bears repeating.

He also said that this is not remotely the same thing as being pro-western, pro-capitalism, pro-American. I think this has a ring of truth to it.

It is entirely possible that a settled democratic Iraq will vocally oppose American foreign policy in the future, and actively seek to counter American military and political dominance in the region.

Their gratitude at liberation may be tempered by mistakes made during normalisation, and the perfectly natural assertion of their own national interests as they perceive them - just as Continental Europe has felt free to do after their WW2 liberation and Cold War protection.

American reactions to European divergence from American opinion and policy has generally been characterised by a sense of "they should be more grateful after everything we have done for them". I fully expect exactly the same reaction from America when, as they inevtiably must, some notional future free & democratic Iraq & Afghanistan disagrees with America about something.

In other words, these elections perhaps mean that America should start to steel herself that the spread of democracy and freedom, while perfectly noble as a goal, may not be as predictably and consistently good for America in the medium to long term as most American opinion seems to think. The victory of capitalism over communism is a global good - no question - but Americans are losing their jobs to Chinese factories, are they not? The law of unforeseen consequences will assert itself in Iraq as surely as eggs are eggs.

Let's also look at what these elections do not mean.

They do not mean that Iraqi democracy or freedom are guaranteed. South Vietnam held elections during the American involvement there, but they ended up meaning nothing, as the South fell to communism. There is much work still to do.

Neither do they mean the end of the terrorist insurgency is any closer - not axiomatically, at any rate. Two of the longest running terror campaigns in recent history - the Basque separatist campaign, and Irish sectarian terror campaigns (they may not be killing British civilians or servicemen, but they are still killing, beating up and intimidating other Northern Irish people) - have both been ongoing for decades (centuries in Ireland) [i][/b]in democracies[/b]/i].

By and large the most useful difference between freedom fighters and terrorists is that when the people get the chance to vote, they support the aims of freedom fighters (the ANC in South Africa, for example) and defeat the aims of terrorists.

We haven't seen the results of the elections in Iraq yet (the counting only properly starts today) but given that more than one of the terror groups active in Iraq sees democracy itself as anti-Islamic and therefore something to be attacked, I can't help but think that free democratic elections on their own will do less than nothing to reduce the security problems in Iraq, and may even exacerbate them.

Recent pronouncements from the US and UK governments indicate that they intend to withdraw their troops in about a years time - close to the next round of elections that select the government of Iraq under the to-be-decided new constitution. After that time any ongoing terrorism will be a problem for the Iraqis themselves to deal with, they say.

Well, if it is still going on, doubtless the civilian and military authorities inside Iraq will still face the brunt of such attacks, as indeed they already are.

However, what makes us think that the terrorists in Iraq won't also follow the US & UK to our home territories and attack us here? And how will we respond if they do? Attack Iraq because they are "harbouring terrorists"?

Does this suggest that Iraqis are, in fact, dedicated to the idea of a democratic state?
Yes, I would say it does, with the reservations outlined above.

Did anyone stay up to watch the coverage?
No, but the time difference to the UK means I didn't really have to

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

Hopefully, it means they can govern themselves without an occupying force. I just don’t see how they can have an effective government without doing something about the violence. The future of Iraq will be all for naught because once the US military leaves Iraq, insurgents (whatever we want to call them) will intimidate and target high-level offcials for assassination which will probably trigger a Civil War.

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

I believe that the majority of Iraqis are dedicated to a democratic state. However, I also believe they are realistic to the fact that until the violence is contained, this election photo-show will be just that a “show”.


Did anyone stay up to watch the coverage?

No, was watching college basketball and seeing Virgina Tech getting waxed by Duke. Maybe I should’ve paid attention.

1. (I'd put this in my signature, but I suspect no one would read it)


2. This was not a show, it was part of a process to hold elections for permanent government and write the constitution under which Iraq will be governed for its foreseeable future.

Surely, you understand the importance of that...

Did you notice the relative lack of violence during the elections? On what had to have been the prime day to exert insurgent influence, it was noticably absent. The elections themselves will also work against the insurgents...the people showed that they supported the activity, and that they want their own government. One could therefore make the claim that perhaps the violence already is contained....not gone, but contained.

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

The numbers seem to indicate a turn out of about 65%, which is the exact amount that was predicted by many Iraqi's prior to the election so I don't see how you can start your question by claiming the turn out was anything greater than expected.

The significance of these elections, by themselves is largely symbolic. It demonstrates a strong desire for self government... which is hardly a surprise. Is there any population on Earth that desires to be governed against its own interests. I don't know of any.

In the long run; the election will only have any significance that is put upon it, which will depend on what happens once the results are known, and how those results are put to use. Its impossible to say at this point what the elections might mean since the range of possibilities, even based on historical models, is endless. These elections may be the start of islamic democracy, or they may be just one more foot note in the religious war between islamic and christian fundamentalists that is so amusingly referred to as the 'war on terror'.


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

No. It demonstrates that about two thirds of the iraqi's are dedicated to the notion of self government. The rest we cannot be sure about.

It has also come to my attention that in the North of Iraq, the Kurds are largely only interested in the creation of a separate state of Kurdistan and did all they could to prevent Iraqi christians from voting for candidates who oppose the creation of such a state. Whilst the creation of a separate Kurdish state is an admirable notion, I doubt whether it is in Iraq's best interests at this time. War with Turkey may very well develop if the Kurds go ahead with their plans.

On the whole though, the results as we see them, were very good and a feather in the cap of the US and coalition forces. I shall be interested to see what happens next. I hope this new chance for peace in Iraq is not squandered.

Lack of violence??? Maybe you didn’t pay close enough attention to the news this past weekend. Let me refresh your memory below:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/10768774.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp&1c

As much as we want to wish away the violence, I have a news message from the “real world” to those in “wonderland”:

IT’S NOT GOING AWAY.

Sure it was encouraging sight to see the Iraqis vote, however just like in most ghettos in the US, if you can’t get the violence under control (and 44 people dying in one day isn’t contained violence) nothing else matters. Separate the politics to the reality on the ground. These guys (the insurgents) will not EVER stop. Not many Americans understand
the history in the region we are dealing with. These guys will fight as long there is a planet earth.

Bottom line, we need the rest of the world to contribute in this democracy process in Iraq. Until that happens, its just a playground for terrorists.

I suppose you didn't notice Hobbes' use of the qualifier "relative." We have seen bloodier days, and given the numerous threats I'd say he's right. The terrorists totally failed at their election day intimidation efforts.


I'll let you in on another point that few Americans realize. The insurgents couldn't care less if the rest of the world gets involved. They will stop fighting when they are overwhelmed by military/judicial force .

You just said it “They will stop fighting”. I strongly disagree with you on this point. Just like the Bush administration, you seemed to think that military force would achieve peace. Do your history on the Middle East (Wonder why any US administration can’t seem to resolve the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians something that’s been going on since before Jesus was born?). It takes more than military force to over come these guys. Just in case you haven’t noticed, the US military (the most powerful in the world) is still having problems trying to quell the violence. So your point here is flawed on military force.

On judicial force, you honestly believe the insurgents gives a “hoot” about the judicial force in Iraq. I’m sure there scared and ready to give up . Once again, you underestimate (like the current administration) the strength and resolve of the insurgency. We are fighting an enemy that isn’t afraid to die. We on the other hand are always concerned about how many soldiers are being killed. See the difference in mentality, you can’t physical eliminate it. This isn’t Germany in 1944 or Japan, we are in unchartered territory and it will take a WHOLE LOT (if anything can be done) more than an election to make democracy work.

It is amazing how many people who live in the United States seem to have this inability to put themselves in the shoes of someone from another land.

Just because most Americans may dive into a double cheeseburger, hanker for Nascar or are mesmerized by Paris Hilton, this does not mean people in other parts of the world want to.

And just because a group of very wealthy men in Washington think trooping to a spruced up school to cast a ballot is the very personification of God’s Will, most people on this planet beg to differ.

The majority of Americans are Christian, which means in their belief, they only have a 50-50 chance of going to the good place after their deaths.

Witness the soldiers of their WWII enemy, Imperial Japan and the members of fundamentalist Islam who have sworn a blood oath against us — in their belief, they have a guaranteed spot in heaven or paradise if they die in battle against the U.S.

There is a tremendous disconnect between the two belief systems.

We do not understand the concept of suicide bombing. But to the insurgents, like the Japanese army before them, this is a perfectly sane method of waging war.

Most Americans think in terms of victory when an enemy signs a surrender document and returning troops are cheered in a parade.

To the insurgents, a victory is achieved every time they make some family in the U.S. shed tears for a lost loved one.

The insurgency will not end because Ilyad Allawi has pronounced them defeated.

George W. Bush proclaimed “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq, but U.S. soldiers continued to die for more than a year after he said that.

They’re continuing to die still.

In Saudi Arabia, clerics and people loyal to Osama bin Laden vowed to wage a relentless fight against the U.S. until Washington pulled its troops out of their country and closed its bases.

Well, guess what? The Bush administration did just that.

There were no parades in Riyahd. And no ticker tape for Osama in the mountains of Pakistan.

But to those who fought to rid the Saudi Kingdom of U.S. troops, it was a victory.

They don’t need some breathless commentator on Fox News to tell them so.

Can you please give some examples of where "the rest of the world" has been more effective in solving a military problem than the United States? I can only think of the opposite...

Somwhere from two-thirds to three-fourths of the Iraqi electorate walked for miles and risked the lives of themselves and their children to go out and vote, and all we hear is how bad everything is. Can we all please agree that the world is better off with some sort of free democracy in the middle east than it is without one?

Here is another view of the voter turnout in Iraq that I found interesting.

The “Oil for Food” program was the tool used to register Iraqis for the election.


In one area, one election official flat out admitted using the threat of withholding food if people didn’t vote.

Dahr Jamail is an “unembedded”, independent reporter working in Iraq (he must be the only one, or at least one of the very few). He was born and raised in Houston, Texas, went to Texas A&M, and has worked in many places around the world. I’m providing this information so that his Arabic-sounding name doesn’t make anyone automatically discount his reporting. He has been in Iraq since November 2003.



Has anyone else heard about this? This reinforces my apprehension about how the Sunnis might feel disenfranchised by the whole process.

edited to fix quote

It's not a matter of history. An accurate view of the situation can be taken through recent observation.

Did you not notice the jump in arrests leading up to the election, did you think that only one suicide bombing on the day that Zarqawi promised would be a "bloodbath" was a happy accident?

Terrorist swould like to destroy the Saudi regime as much as the would Iraq. Just one problem, Saudi forces are everywhere making the job of terrorist very unattractive.

They likely use more draconian measure than the new Iraqi government would like to employ but the principle is the same. Terrorists can be defeated militarily (try Afghanistan as an example, again empty threats of a bloody election) as long as their is a strong political process presented as an alternative. That is the point of the election


I included judicial forces as an option for those complicit with terror and not necessarily the killers themselves. Those feeding them funds likely do fear a long stay in Iraqi prisons.


I'm a vegetarian, I've never watched a race, and is is just me, or in Paris Hilton's head a bit lopsided?


Didn't know God flipped a coin to decide... (I couldn't resist).



That's funny seeing as the Japanese did surrender...



Some family in Iraq too, it is that attitude which will sap their strength. It doesn't matter that some aren't afraid afraid to die. The point is that they would be dead and gone not whether or not their happy about it.

Edited to correct the assertion that there was only one suicide bombs, there wre nin, but only in one city (Baghdad, of course)

Lets take a long free walk around Iraq and another long walk around your neighborhood and lets see if you can tell the difference between being safe and not safe. I would bet the house we wouldn't last 5 minutes on the first walk. Understand that it takes more than words and votes to have freedom.

Look at the picture for what it is, once the US leaves there is a high probability that the insurgency will attempt to take over Iraq. Whose going to protect the Iraqi people after we're gone?? The Iraqi security force? The media and the Bush administration don't want to mention this to the American people, but ask yourself why everybody is so cautions about what happens next now that the election is over. How will the violence stop. NO ONE CAN PROVIDE THE ANSWER!!! Thats the point.

You did not address my argument that the election was largely a success, yet every pronouncement on the election by those against the war comes with a "but..." It indeed takes more than words and votes to have freedom, but compared to Syria or Egypt, is Iraq doing better or worse in this regard since the US invasion?

As for your point about chaos following a US withdrawal... If we were pulling out today, I would totally agree with you. But we are not. We are staying until Iraq can field a security force and govern themselves.

Do you agree or disagree with the chorus of Democratic voices that will be using the words "exit strategy" and "timeline" ad nauseum for the next few months? Would giving terrorists a timeline for our exit help or harm the terrorists' cause?

It means that like most people on the planet, Iraqis desire freedom...Which is a good thing, hopefully they will continue to have high turnout in the future.

Unless they've elected some theocratic party, it seems to me like they are...But I'll withhold judgement until the votes are counted.

Sure did, the media should be absolutely ashamed of itself...Chris Matthews was talking about all of the deaths that had occurred on election day, didn't say one positive thing all show long about the election [he even complained that, get this, the election would divide the country...They've been a democracy for 4 days, and this guy's already talking about polarization!] The New York Times the next day had front page articles about the deaths [again, nothing positive on the first page] resulting form suicide bombers, and then threw in some completely unrelated, stupid stories that belonged on Page A15. The Economist showed a picture of two exceptionally angry looking Iraqi women walking through the streets of Baghdad, with the headline "Democracy by Gunpoint". How 'bout this for a headline, IRAQ VOTES FOR FIRST TIME IN 50+ YEARS! Absolutely shameful coverage by the "mainstream" media.

CP

FIRST, stop looking at the “everybody against the war thinks like this” game. This ignorant game the politicians play is one of the main reasons why our country is so divided today. I’m giving you MY OWN views on the situation in Iraq. So lets eliminate this “everybody against the war thinks like this” game mentality and debate as real people.

SECOND, without any plan on quelling the violence in Iraq the election in my opinion is a waste. We are just hoping that since the election has taken place, the violence will stop. I hope it does so we can get our troops back home. I don’t care
about Syria and Egypt, this whole Iraq thing was about WMD. Now is about the people’s freedom. Yes the election in itself was successful, but was it worth the lies, the lives of the soldiers, the hardships of the soldier’s families, the federal budget deficit, the stress, the division in our own country etc… Not to me.





I agree with your point here. Until these two objectives are accomplished, we can’t even think about leaving now.




There’s nothing wrong talking about an exit strategy because its just that a “strategy”. It would be nice to have a plan to accomplish some goals because so far we was unprepared for the post-war occupation. And its not just democratic voices who feel this way (I’m independent and I feel we should talk about an exit strategy, does that make me a democrat??). When we finally stop categorizing people who feel a certain way affiliated with one political and actually start coming up with solutions as a PEOPLE, the divisions in this country will cease to exist. Just a word of advice.

Only because Tokyo was the next target for a nuclear bomb.

And only because the majority of the Japanese people obeyed the dictates of their Emperor, whom they viewed as a God.

Indeed, when the Emperor went on the radio to inform the Japanese populace of his momentous decision, it was the first time they had ever heard his voice.

Few people would dare oppose Nippon's Emperor. But many did. A group of army officers in Tokyo tried to steal the recording of his surrender acceptance speech.

And the morning that the surrender was actually signed, a group of Kamikaze planes took off in hopes of sinking the USS Missouri anchored in Tokyo Bay. But in one of the war's great mysteries, the aircraft simply disappeared and were never heard from again.

The bottom line is, there is no Emperor in Iraq or in the Middle East.

These insurgents won't surrender and they're not afraid of the United States either.

And if there's one thing they've proven in this war, it's this:

U.S. soldiers bleed and die just like any other.

Most Americans lack empathy and a knowledge of other cultures.

They think a couple of smart bombs will do the trick or that the U.S. military can solve all problems.

Hogwash.

If this were true, Saigon would not be called Ho Chi Minh City today.

That would only add to my point. The Iraqi insurgents are far less an worthy adversary than Imperial Japan. It will take less than an atomic bomb to silence the already sidelined criminals.

The majority of Iraqis are already against the insurgency and the latest fiasco of murdering voters won't help any.
Iraqis Who Died While Daring to Vote Are Mourned as Martyrs

The closest thing to any emperor in Iraq in terms of popular appeal is Ayatollah Sistani, who has already condemned violence and spurred the enormous turnout among Shiites in the elections.

You're trying to dodge the point, even if a few aren't afraid to die, they cannot stop the many. The Japanese kamikaze could never have defeated the US after the surrender. Neither can the hugely unpopular insurgents defeat the US in Iraq.

Most people lack an empathy and knowledge of other cultures

this is neither here nor there.

The U.S. military can and has solved some problems in the past, this is hardly the most difficult.

Turnea,

The insurgency has not been defeated.

The election meant nothing, except that people in Iraq are prone to pay very close attention to their clerics.

This was no vote for democracy.

It was simply millions of ordinary Iraqis following the dictates of Shi'ite Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani who knows full well that he controls the greater number of votes in Iraq.

Which means he will control the thrust of any new government that must acknowledge his power.

The insurgency is already back.

And wreaking havoc as much as it did before the election.

I have no idea why anyone would think things were going to change in Iraq.

It's nice they voted.

But can Bush guarantee the electricity will stay on all day?

Can Bush guarantee that all Iraqis have clean drinking water?

Bush can't even guarantee people in the heavily defended Green Zone will be safe.

The election guaranteed nothing.

Except that people who support this war would have yet another excuse to hang their hat on.

Remember: "We're going to war to deprive Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction?"

Whatever happened to that line of bull?

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

It means that they pass the first test. It means that they are not too afraid to stand up against the insurgency. It means the terrorists that oppose a freely-elected government in Iraq are the enemy of the people of Iraq. It means that they have a chance.

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

If by dedicated you mean willing to stand in line at great personal risk and in some instances die, I'd say the answer is a resounding yes.


Did anyone stay up to watch the coverage?

Yes. I was very concerned about the security situation and voter turnout. Had the Iraqis not shown up on Sunday, the US millitary effort in Iraq was sunk. That was my worry.

Leonard, we meet again

I highly doubt that Iraqis would risk their lives and vote just because al-Sistani "blessed" a few political parties...I think that by just going out and voting, the Iraqi people showed a commitment to self-governance [depending on who they elect, of course].

CP

I never said it had, yet...

Your analysis is wrong here for a couple of reasons.

First of all the Shiites of Iraq were eager to take control of the country regardless of what their clerics said after being denied it for centuries. Sistani's influence was not in election turnout which would have been high regardless (though his words did certainly help) but in the unification of the tickets of main Shia parties (SCIRI and Dawa) which by the way made Sadr's party a minority in the extreme.

Ayatollah Sistani is well known for his belief in the non-interference of clerics in policy. Indeed the group that has his quiet backing has vowed not to even run clergy as candidate. Their word :"The will be no Turbans in government."

Sistani acted as an advocate for peaceful stabilization by encouraging the vote and preventing infighting, he does not intend to control the "thrust" of the government in the least.

They never left...


...the insurgents frequently sabotage all of these things, such services cannot be guaranteed without an increase in security which means defeating the insurgents.


... it guaranteed an continuation of the political process to establish a permanent Iraqi democracy and gave insurgents the option of dropping their weapons and dealing peacefully.

That's nothing to sneeze at, certainly the Iraqis don't think so.

I too have a problem with the failure to find WMD in Iraq, It does invalidate the given reasoning for the war. In fact, I started a topic on it.
Responsibility for Failure
Don't confuse me with some die-hard Bush supporter, I support the democratic aspirations of the Iraqi people.

Turnea and Conserve Pat,

Good to see you both again.

Turnea,

I know you're not a die-hard Bush supporter.

I believe this is one thrust of your arguments.

That although the original premises for this war have not been proven, (and will never be), the U.S. must ensure that Iraq is protectively ushered into a new era of peace and prosperity.

At least, that's what I think you'd like to see.

And that would be a good thing.

I would just prefer no U.S. soldiers have to die for that to happen.

ConservePat,

I hear ya, my man.

Indeed, we meet again.

For all others,

I just believe that thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians should not have had to lose their lives for this.

For anyone to say that they had to or that it works out in the end because of a new government in Iraq is exhibiting the highest form of racial arrogrance imaginable.

That is my opinion.

For no one has the right to support the deaths of thousands of citizens of a nation and the destruction of its electrical, water and sewage plants in order to put in a place a government they think will resemble their own.

No one has that right.

This election was successful, the terrorist's will not stop, and an election will happen again next year and be successful just as it was this year. The new government has been established and the terrorist's will fail just as they failed last month to stop the elections. I read in another post that the insurgent's had over 200,000 members in their ranks! 200,000 insurgents on election day and yet they failed to "fill the street's of Baghdad with voter's blood". The insurgent's are overestimated by many people because they know how to grab headlines. What were these 200,000 insurgent's doing on election day? Maybe.... voting?

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/02/e...-elections.html

With stronger than expected turnout, what might these elections mean for the future of Iraq?
I guess no one has seen this yet, perhaps I should change my signature to "I told you so" in bold letters because I'm tired of typing it.

Officials Back Away From Earlier Turnout Estimates


And this is also a very good point:


So it looks like "strong" turnout may not be the appropriate word to use afterall. I guess we'll all know shortly but the data out there right now suggests this was quite an exaggeration.

If this provision of the Iraqi Constitution is in fact true then it looks like some of you may have been underestimating the power the Sunnis will have as a "minority".

I noted early in the thread that the 72% were high-end estimates. It seems the results were still higher than expectations, this may be because expectations were pretty darn low with terrorists threatening to "wash the streets with blood."

I too have heard of the low-turnout in Mosul, which I have also heard may have been caused by errors which didn't allow ballots to be delivered. Some Kurds are claiming this was on purpose.

In Diverse Mosul, Slightly More Than 10% Voted, but That's More Than Expected
Some thought there would be no vote in Nineveh province because of the violence in Mosul.

Iraqis Report a Variety of Complaints About Irregularities on Election Day

No one is claiming perfection but this was an success far beyond the fears of many who though that day would be far bloodier than it turned out.

Turnea I can't understand how on one hand you can say that there was a "strong" turn out and we should all be popping open the Champagne simply because the election wasn't a blood bath, and on the other you are saying that "expectations are so low" that anything would have been a success. I'm sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either there was a "strong" turn out, "strong" meaning in the traditional sense as in "a large majority of the country" or are expectations were so low in the first place that the elections would have had to be cancelled to be considered a failure.

The author makes the implication that if turn out was low in Mosul then it might have been low in other places too. I would think that is a reasonable conclusion given the fact that turnout everywhere was highly overstated after the election and the numbers continue to be revised downwards.

But most importantly you completely ignored the second part of my post which I feel is the most relevant to this discussion. I'm not interested in haggling with you over numbers, but what does concern me is this:


So if you are going to declare this election a brilliant success you either have to refute the statement that is part of their constitution or make some kind of argument