Postpone Iraq's Elections
Also in World
Whistleblower: There’s a Lot Less Oil Than We Think and U.S. Has Been Trying to Cover It Up
Terry Macalister
The Ft. Hood Massacre Is George Bush's Fault
Thom Hartmann
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges
Egyptian Marine: Soldiers Often 'Racialize' the Enemy to Cope With Stress
Aaron Glantz
10 Suicides This Year at Ft. Hood -- War Stress Is Taking Soldiers to the Brink
Dahr Jamail
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin
The elections in Iraq scheduled to take place this month need to be postponed. Elections are needed, but the timing is wrong, with the insurgency growing with every passing moment and Iraqis bracing themselves for the worst. Few Iraqis feel safe enough to cast a vote and fewer still know who the candidates are or what they stand for.
When I speak to relatives in Iraq, they seem far more concerned about the security of their families than the elections. They say the situation is quickly spiraling into chaos. Election officials are being killed, threatened and kidnapped daily and the entire Electoral Commission in Anbar province west and north of the capital has resigned.
Some well-placed officials in the interim government are voicing doubts about the elections. Iraqi interim President Ghazi Al Yawer stated that "the January date for Iraqi elections is not sacred and the vote could be postponed if a lack of security threatens the fairness of balloting." Barham Salih, Iraq's deputy prime minister, added that the increased violence can derail the elections. Iraq's interim minister of defense, Hazim Shaalan, has added his voice to the chorus calling for a delay.
Numerous major parties have made it clear that they will boycott the elections for a variety of reasons. Last October, these political entities came together and recommended a six-month delay and demanded an immediate cease-fire by U.S. and Iraqi troops. Unfortunately, their demands were ignored. The attack on Fallujah came merely a week after these political parties called for the cease-fire in a declaration. Those attacks killed hundreds of Iraqis and left thousands homeless, creating a humanitarian disaster. That's hardly a recipe for wining hearts and minds.
The U.S. administration and the interim Iraqi government are adamant about holding elections on Jan. 30. They claim that without an election, the legitimacy of the government is at stake and the security situation will continue to deteriorate.
Such thinking is what got the Bush administration into this mess in the first place. It is this type of intransigence and lack of foresight that has created an atmosphere of mistrust and doubt. Those who demand a delay are asking: What's the rush? Iraqis have waited over 50 years to have an election. Certainly they can wait six more months. Allowing for a six-month delay may not solve the security issues or help the candidates to get their message out, but it can sure go a long way in providing a spirit of cooperation and reconciliation among the competing political and religious factions. It will also save lives. Such a gesture on the part of the interim government can be a catalyst for healing.
On the other hand, sticking to this arbitrary date will only play into the hands of the insurgents and allow for further division and hatred. The date for elections was set over a year ago. Few believed that things would be this bad at this juncture. Many Iraqis hoped that the security situation will be manageable by now. The reality on the ground is far worse than what anyone would have predicted.
Brent Scowcroft, who served as President George H. W. Bush's national security adviser said: "The Iraqi elections, rather than turning out to be a promising turning point, have the great potential for deepening the conflict." As in every transition, there are major pivotal points. An election can be such a milestone. It would be unfortunate for us to squander this opportunity. Surely we cannot make everyone happy, but we can certainly make every attempt to dispel suspicions that will deem these elections illegitimate thus further alienating a major segment of Iraqi society.
Everyone knows the election will bring on a Shiite majority. Not all communities have bought into the process, and if they stay out, the outcome won't be legitimate. What's the point of holding elections if many Iraqis are going to reject the outcome? They won't be democratic and will serve no purpose other than to further divide the Iraqi people.
Anas Shallal is an Iraqi-American and the founder of Iraqi Americans for Peaceful Alternatives. He lives in Northern Virginia and is an analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus.
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »
| More Opinion: | ||
|
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War Media and Technology: The right-wing media are trying to play "king-maker." But they are incapable of picking winners and stand poised to rip the Republican Party apart. By Eric Boehlert, Media Matters for America. November 11, 2009. |
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's? Health and Wellness: Why the health care reform act has a very long and very difficult road ahead. By Booman, Booman Tribune. November 10, 2009. |
Atheists, It's Time to Stand Up to Jesus Belief: Civility has its uses, but atheists should not be afraid to mock faith to undermine religious power. By Russell Blackford, Udo Schuklenk, Comment Is Free. November 9, 2009. |
Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.