| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Taking Risks For Freedom |
| 2005-01-25 |
| 'BA'AD!" This is what one is likely to hear whenever talking to Iraqis these days. It's short for the phrase ba'ad al-intikhabat — "after the elections." Weddings are being postponed until after Election Day, as are business contracts, poetry recitals, play openings, the start of the soccer season and, of course, the rebuilding of towns and villages wrecked by months of insurgency. Also on hold are big projects financed by the $18 billion U.S. aid package and the $6 billion-plus pledged by Europe, Japan and the Arab states. Never have so many people pinned so much hope on a single day of voting. Jan. 30 is to give Iraq its first freely elected Parliament, plus provincial and regional councils. It will not only set the course for 25 million Iraqis but could also determine a new balance of power in the Middle East and the United States' status as a "superpower" capable of reshaping the regional status quo. The interim government's determination to hold the election is matched by the equally firm insurgent/terrorist resolve to disrupt the voting. In parts of Baghdad and several towns in the so-called Sunni Triangle, northwest of the capital, a slogan has appeared on some walls: Min Al-Sanduq il Al-sanduq! — "From the ballot box into the coffin." The 160,000 or so U.S. and Coalition troops represent a small force in a country the size of France with some 18,000 villages and almost 300 towns and cities. Over a year of effort to create a new Iraqi army and police has not produced the desired results. On paper, the interim government employs almost 200,000 soldiers and policemen. But Iraqi officials admit in private that no more than three battalions are reliable. Yet despite almost daily terrorist attacks, most Iraqis appear determined that the election should take place. Almost 75 percent of those eligible have registered to vote. Campaigning is most intense in the Shiite and Kurdish areas — where the insurgents, despite a number of spectacular attacks, have failed to make an impression. Meetings are held in mosques, schools, village halls and the homes of the candidates where would-be voters are often treated to free meals. In parts of southern Iraq, big tribal tents double as town halls for the election. Much of the debate takes place through talk on the 50 or so privately owned radio stations, especially in and around Baghdad, and in the columns of the 200 or so newspapers and magazines that have sprung up since liberation. "We know that there are criminals determined to blow us up," says Abdul-Hussein Hindawi, head of the independent Electoral Commission. "But we cannot allow fear to shape our future. Iraqis know that they must take risks to build a free society." Grand Ayatollah Ali-Muhammad Sistani, the primus inter pares of the Shiite clergy, has issued a fatwa (edict), urging everyone to vote. "Taking part in the elections and building a democratic system are religious duties," he asserts. Sistani has endorsed a candidate list in the race but insists that the clergy must not seek a direct role in the government. The election, based on proportional representation, treats Iraq as a single constituency. This may lead to a hung Parliament in which the three Shiite lists would represent the largest bloc but be unable to form a majority without some Kurdish and Sunni support. Most participants have already approved a draft constitution designed to turn Iraq into a democratic, pluralist and federal state. They have also agreed that at least 25 percent of the seats should go to women. But there are divisions over other issues, including the role of the state in the economy, the sharing of oil revenues and water resources, the future of the city of Kirkuk (claimed by both Arabs and Kurds) and the relationship between secular legislation and Islamic Shariah (theological law.) Those issues intensely interest a majority of Iraqis, hence the current view that the turnout will be even larger than the insurgents fear. "I am hungry to vote," says Ghazban Fayyad, owner of a bookstall in downtown Baghdad. "All I hope is that I am not blown up before I cast my ballot." Iraq today is the scene of several inter-related conflicts, each of which could kill hopes of stabilization let alone democratization. Some Sunnis oppose any election because it could end their dream of regaining the dominance they had in government since the British turned Iraq into a state in 1921. Kurds, meanwhile, are determined to secure as much autonomy as possible — which both Shiite and Sunni Arabs see as a threat to central government authority. A third conflict pits the U.S-led coalition against Iran and Syria. Those nations fear that, were America to succeed in Iraq, they could be the next targets for regime change. So they are doing all they can to ensure that the election does not produce a pro-American majority. The best-case scenario runs along these lines: The election produces a Parliament that chooses a new government of national unity. Enjoying popular legitimacy, this government deprives the insurgency of its claim of fighting against foreign occupation. The U.S. and Coalition allies are then able to scale down their military presence while accelerating the recruitment, training and deployment of Iraqi armed forces and police — allowing Coalition forces to withdraw by 2007. Also in this scenario, Iraq would mobilize its immense manpower and natural resources to rebuild its economy. The International Monetary Fund reported last November that even now the Iraqi economy is performing better than any other in the Arab Middle East, and could become the region's engine of growth over the next decade. The worst-case scenario is equally stark: Widespread violence could disrupt the election, while mass Sunni boycott casts doubt on the results. The insurgents could extend their attacks to Shiite areas, provoking Shiite counterattacks. This could lead to a de facto partition of the country or intermittent ethnic war of the kind Lebanon experienced in the 1970s and 1980s — followed by an American retreat from the quagmire, a Kurdish breakaway, clashes with Turkey and Iran . . . I think the best-case scenario is more likely. Nevertheless, let's wait with the Iraqis, for "ba'ad" — after the election. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #4 The International Monetary Fund reported last November that even now the Iraqi economy is performing better than any other in the Arab Middle East, and could become the region’s engine of growth over the next decade. Yet another crucial story spiked by the MSM. |
| Posted by: lex 2005-01-25 4:01:58 PM |
| #3 But Iraqi officials admit in private that no more than three battalions are reliable. Evidently the number has tripled since November, I recall only the 36th Commando (Kurdish mainly) was considered reliable. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-01-25 3:25:19 PM |
| #2 Things like this make me proud to be a citizen of the nation that helped put these people on this path. Now we just need to put the smackdown on those thugs . . . |
| Posted by: The Doctor 2005-01-25 3:12:34 PM |
| #1 Take that, all you soft racists who believe the little brown people prefer not to have to think for themselves! We look to be batting .1000 with this democracy thingy -- first Afghanistan, then the U.S., now Iraq. I can't wait to see what happens next. :-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-01-25 12:40:25 PM |