Recently, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said this about holding January elections in Iraq:
“Let’s say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in some places you couldn’t because the violence was too great,” Rumsfeld said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. “Well, so be it. Nothing’s perfect in life, so you have an election that’s not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet,” he said.”
Allawi, the Prime Minister of Iraq, said this:
“Dr. Allawi said that of Iraq’s 18 provinces, “14 to 15 are completely safe.” He added that the other provinces suffer “pockets of terrorists” who inflict damage in them and plot attacks carried out elsewhere in the country. In other appearances, Dr. Allawi asserted that elections could be held in 15 of the 18 provinces.”
I am dismayed that two prominent political figures argue that elections in democratic countries do not have to be available for everyone in order for those elections to be legitimate. “Elections for elections’ sake” ideas are foolish and misguided. Elections are for all those eligible to vote to express their will, exercise accountability of politicians, and therefore to legitimize the democratic system. You simply can’t have partial elections. It is an all or nothing, not an elections for elections’ sake proposition. Imagine the United States declaring Florida an unsuitable place for elections because of the numerous problems found in the voting systems (both former presidents Ford and Carter advised that changes be made, and changes have not been adequately done. See here for the history and here for the follow-up). Well, 49 out of 50 ain’t bad, right?
And how safe are these provinces? According to a recent report, every single province in Iraq has been under attack at least once:
“Over the past 30 days, more than 2,300 attacks by insurgents have been directed against civilians and military targets in Iraq, in a pattern that sprawls over nearly every major population center outside the Kurdish north, according to comprehensive data compiled by a private security company with access to military intelligence reports and its own network of Iraqi informants.”
Towns like Falluja are considered “no-go,” which means that at the current time, insurgents control resource distribution there. No-go means no elections. The most intense fighting is, of course, in Baghdad. Baghdad is not a no-go, but what are the realistic possibilities of holding elections there by January?
The Pentagon, of course, has a different view:
“Pentagon officials and military officers like to point to a separate list of statistics to counter the tally of attacks, including the number of schools and clinics opened. They cite statistics indicating that a growing number of Iraqi security forces are trained and fully equipped, and they note that applicants continue to line up at recruiting stations despite bombings of them. But most of all, military officers argue that despite the rise in bloody attacks during the past 30 days, the insurgents have yet to win a single battle. “We have had zero tactical losses; we have lost no battles,” said one senior American military officer. “The insurgency has had zero tactical victories. But that is not what this is about.
“We are at a very critical time,” the officer added. “The only way we can lose this battle is if the American people decide we don’t want to fight anymore.”
How does a “no-go” zone not fall under the “zero tactical losses” category? What word twisting are they doing here?
The U.S. and Iraqi governments are spitting propaganda about the possibilities of elections. Worse yet, prominent political officials believe that elections in a democratic country can be legitimate even if some people who, under the law, would be eligible to vote, but are prevented from doing so. It is time for realistic assessments of what is going on in Iraq other than the propaganda smoke screens thrown in the faces of Americans and Iraqis.
Tell the truth. We can handle it.
The truth is that in World War II, there were sabotage attacks for six years after the war had ended. A resistance group of the former Third Reich calling themselves Werewolves launched terrorist attacks against the interim government and the company infrastructure for years. What did the Russians and U.S. do about these terrorists? They stayed the course, hunted down the terrorists and killed them all.
As for the voting, it’s going to be next to impossible to run a voting booth when you have someone strapped with dynamite trying to hug you. Just like they did in this country when voting started, they will get to as many people as possible. They can only do their best.
This war is going to take time and effort, but anything worthwhile always does.
Jimmy Carter’s take on anything outside of building houses for the poor must be taken with not just a grain of salt, but a salt lick that would nourish a herd of deer that stretched from Pittsburgh to Montana. On elections especially, given his recent performance in Venezuela:
http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200409081135
So, it would be safe to say that I find his words to be at least as believable as you might find, say, Donald Rumsfeld’s.
As for the elections not being valid because some military action in a few towns keep citizens from voting, I don’t agree. The “all or nothing” approach seems rather niggling in light of the fact that these people haven’t truly had a say about who’s in charge of their country since the beginning of human history. If you want perfection, you won’t find it anywhere, and to demand it ignores the basic reality of the situation: Fallujah is not the entirety of the country. A few power-hungry terrorists holed up in a mosque: that’s the reality.
If anything’s clear, it’s that one man’s “realistic assessment” of Iraq may be just another man’s desire to have his preconceptions reinforced. That is, it’s all opinion.
In my view, Rumsfeld’s assertion that elections in and of themselves are an intrinsic good is partially right. Elections can be good just to have them (though some political scientists would argue that repeated elections have their downside, as well). However, his statement ignores that elections are only good if they are legitimate. How could elections in Iraq be legitimate if a substantial proportion of the population can’t get to the polling booth? How could an “elected official” in Iraq claim he was elected by the will of the people if most of the will of the people was prevented from voting for him?
Iraq isn’t looking for “perfection.” Iraq is looking for legitimate elections so that the country can end the U.S. occupation and move forward. It is unrealistic to assume that just because George Bush said elections will be held in January that elections can be held in January.
And I don’t know what “niggling” means.
Niggling: overly fine and exact.
“Substantial” in this case is pretty subjective. Is one town out of the entire country a substantial number of people? Two towns? Two cities?
There’s also a strategy here that may be missed: the individuals who are deliberately trying to keep a free country from exercising its ability to hold free and fair elections (to coin a phrase) for the first time in its history end up looking (if possible) more criminal. As a result, the non-criminal Iraqis look better, and those Iraqis who truly want a democratic system of government may be more inclined toward helping us end the fighting. That is, they might stand up if they realize just what’s at stake.