"All that is old and already formed can continue to live only if it allows within itself the conditions of a new beginning."
The Iraq Election:
A Stunning SuccessPosted 7:57 p.m., Jan. 30, 2005
|
By all accounts, the Iraqi people have done themselves incredibly proud, performing their civic duty as voters under conditions--and in numbers--that put Americans to shame.
President Bush is fully justified in declaring the election in Iraq "a resounding success."
I will confess that I did not believe this turn of events was likely to happen. I will spare some reservations for exactly what it means; it could be that the elections weren't disrupted more broadly because the insurgents have some other bigger plans. Or it could be that Iraq has turned the corner on the insurgency, and will now beat it back with their ballots. It is impossible at this stage to know. We won't even know for 10 days or so the exact outcome of the elections.
But one thing is undeniable. The Iraqis turned out at a rate of about 57 percent nationwide, or about 8 million voters. And in Baghdad--in the heart of the Sunni triangle, where walking the streets is normally perilous, let alone during an election that terrorists threatened to derail--turnout was huge.
And that was true despite obstacles that undoubtedly would have brought turnout rates in an American election down to something like single digits. As a security precaution, auto traffic was banned for the day and most people were forced to walk to polling stations. Once there, they were forced to wait many hours in line, and submit to pat-downs and searches.
It isn't that the terrorists took the day off. There were in fact attacks: Nine suicide bombers managed to kill some 36 people. Iraqi citizens were taking chances with their lives in order to exercise their democratic right to vote.
CBS-TV's Dan Rather put it aptly. "Despite the loss of life, the day went better than many dared to hope."
...
The violence did not seem to have deterred most Iraqis. In Baghdad, Basra in the South, the holy Shiite city of Najaf and even the restive Northern city of Mosul, Iraqi civilians crowded the polling sites, navigating their way through tight security and sometimes proudly displaying the deep blue ink stain on their fingers that confirmed they had voted.
-- "Attacks in Baghdad and Elsewhere
Reportedly Kill Several Dozen,"
Dexter Filkins and John Burns,
New York Times,
Jan. 30, 2005
...
Not Over Yet
It was both inspiring and heartbreaking to see the Shiite man from Baghdad interviewed by CBS' Elizabeth Palmer describe why he was headed to the polls. With sobs straining his speech, the bespectable man said through an interpreter, "My brother was a martyr. And voting is the best way of honoring his death."
Such inspirations are many, but today real concerns remain. Many Sunnis from the central section of the country stayed home because of the threat of death, while Shiite participation was expected in some areas to be as high as 90 percent. In places north and west of Baghdad, the Los Angeles Times reports, many Sunni polling places didn't open for fear of insurgents. Despite protean efforts by U.S. and Iraqi military forces to assure public safety in Ramadi, the turnout in that Sunni stronghold was the worst of any major city in the country.
That imbalance could raise concerns that the election might be perceived as illegitimate by a critical Sunni minority. But turnout in Baghdad, one hopes, might offset that affect.
Now comes the waiting.
Unlocking the Cipher
What will the elections mean?
We know it doesn't mean that a new government is in place. The elections today were merely in preparation for writing a national constitution. An election to elect an actual new government won't take place until next December, most likely.
Does this mean that Americans are on their way out? There are some signals that might be the case. Iraq's interim Interior Minister Falah Al-Naqib told Channel 4 News London, "I think we will not need foreign forces in this country within 18 months. I think we will be able to depend on ourselves."
Which brings up the most important strategic question for the United States. How will the Bush team read today's events, which I think can be justly appraised to be the country's first solid foreign policy success since the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the ouster of Saddam Hussein.
Given the outlines of the President's missionary statement in his inaugural address, and given the disturbing report by the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh that sources inside the Pentagon are preparing for the next war, this time with Iran, it wouldn't be unreasonable to believe that today's success might be viewed as justification for further incursions, further efforts to spread democracy by force.
As of today, one must concede, it is a slightly more ambiguous question as to whether that would be a good thing. My gut still tells me we'd better take a break from these adventures for a while. But I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
Kevblog Note: I'm incredibly fortunate this week to be heading to Washington, D.C. at a precipitous moment, as part of my Humphrey Institute Public Policy Forum fellowship. While we are there, the president will deliver his State of the Union message, and of course the results of the Iraq election will begin to trickle in. And we will be meeting with a series of genuine heavyweights, though I don't know that I am at liberty to disclose them at the moment, just because some of our bookings might not be quite confirmed.
I will be reporting at least once from D.C. to let you all know what I find there.
Over and out.
-- Kevin Featherly
|
Visit the Kevblog archive.
Copyright 2004, by Kevin Featherly
