Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Nurturing Iraq's Non-Election

By Robert Jensen and Pat Youngblood, AlterNet. Posted January 28, 2005.


To pretend that the U.S. might want true democracy in Iraq – one that actually would be free to follow the will of the people – is to ignore evidence, logic and history.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The U.S. news media are full of discussion and debate about this weekend's election in Iraq. Unfortunately, virtually all the commentary misses a simple point: There will be no "election" on Jan. 30 in Iraq, if that term is meant to suggest an even remotely democratic process.

Many Iraqis casting votes will be understandably grateful for the opportunity. But the conditions under which those votes will be cast – as well as the larger context – bear more similarity to a slowly unfolding hostage tragedy than an exercise in democracy. We refer not to the hostages taken by various armed factions in Iraq, but the way in which U.S. policymakers are holding the entire Iraqi population hostage to U.S. designs for domination of the region.

This is an election that U.S. policymakers were forced to accept and now hope can entrench their power, not displace it. They seek not an election that will lead to a U.S. withdrawal, but one that will bolster their ability to make a case for staying indefinitely.

This is crucial to keep in mind as the mainstream media begins to give us pictures of long lines at polling places to show how much Iraqis support this election and to repeat the Bush administration line about bringing freedom to a part of the world starved for democracy. Those media reports also will give some space to those critics who remain comfortably within the permissible ideological limits – that is, those who agree that the U.S. aim is freedom for Iraq and, therefore, are allowed to quibble with a few minor aspects of administration policy.

A painfully obvious fact, and therefore one that is unspeakable in the mainstream, is that a real election cannot take place under foreign occupation in which the electoral process is managed by the occupiers who have clear preferences in the outcome. That's why the U.S.-funded programs that "nurture" the voting process have to be implemented "discreetly," in the words of a Washington Post story, to avoid giving the Iraqis who are "well-versed in the region's widely held perception of U.S. hegemony" further reason to mistrust the assumed benevolent intentions of the United States.

Post reporters Karl Vick and Robin Wright quote an Iraqi-born instructor from one of these training programs: "If you walk into a coffee shop and say, 'Hi, I'm from an American organization and I'm here to help you,' that's not going to help. If you say you're here to encourage democracy, they say you're here to control the Middle East."

Perhaps those well-versed Iraqis say that because it is an accurate assessment of policy in the Bush administration, as well as every other contemporary U.S. administration. They dare to suggest that the U.S. goal is effective control over the region's oil resources.

But we in the United States are not supposed to think, let alone say, such things; that same Post story asserts that the groups offering political training in Iraq (the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, International Republican Institute, and International Foundation for Election Systems) are "at the ambitious heart of the American effort to make Iraq a model democracy in the Arab world."

To fulfill that alleged ambition, U.S. troop strength in Iraq will remain at the current level of about 120,000 for at least two more years, according to the Army's top operations officer. For the past two years, journalists have reported on U.S. intentions to establish anywhere from four to 14 "enduring" military bases in Iraq. Given that there about 890 U.S. military installations around the world to provide the capacity to project power in service of the U.S. political and economic agenda, it's not hard to imagine that planners might be interested in bases in the heart of the world's most important energy-producing region.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Robert Jensen is on the board and Pat Youngblood is coordinator of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center in Austin, Texas.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »

World » Story Tools: email EMAILprint PRINT
High Noon in Honduras
World: The drama in Honduras has moved from the small, impoverished country to the international stage.
By Laura Carlsen, AlterNet. July 4, 2009.
Will the Tragedy of Michael Jackson's Life Be Inherited By His Kids?
Media and Technology: Jackson's fame and fortune ensured he had few barriers whatever fancy seized him -- including his made-to-order kids.
By Patricia J. Williams, The Nation. July 4, 2009.
Rolling Stone Expose Declares Goldman Sachs Behind Every Market Crash Since 1920s
Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace: Matt Taibbi explains how the company created market bubbles and then profited from the crash that followed.
By Daniel Tencer, Raw Story. July 4, 2009.
Advertisement
Advertisement