 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2005 9:40 pm Post subject: Wash Times Commentary: Delay Iraq Elections? |
 |
|
I thought this was an interesting commentary on the topic of considering a delay in the Iraqi election. Perhaps, as the author suggests, it might be a realistic means of encouraging full participation of the Sunni population...
| Quote: | Iraqi Elections: Time for Flexibility
Michael E. O'Hanlon, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies, The Brookings Institute
The Washington Times
January 9, 2005
Up until now, President Bush has been right to insist elections in Iraq will be held on schedule Jan. 30. To show weakness on this would have angered Shi'ites and Kurds, who want their country back after decades of Sunni oppression. It would also have convinced Sunni Arabs not to bother preparing for elections that probably wouldn't happen on schedule anyway. It would have given up too soon, for no real benefit.
But it's time for flexibility. The strategy of having elections Jan. 30 probably will not work well because Sunni Arab turnout seems likely to be very low. Many Sunni politicians have bowed out. And public opinion polls show markedly less Sunni enthusiasm than among Iraq's other major ethnic and religious groups. Very little turnout is likely.
Given the voting system Iraq is to use in January, which does not include regional representation as in the U.S. Congress, very few Sunni Arab politicians would get elected.
The likely result is more anger among Sunnis, greater estrangement from the rest of the Iraqi population and greater sympathy and support for an insurgency that remains Sunni-dominated. Everyone will suffer, not just the Sunnis.
Therefore, an increasing number of top Sunni political figures, including some who are very moderate and pro-American (such as former Interim President Pachachi) have decided there is no choice: The elections should be postponed. They are right.
Some say showing flexibility now will embolden insurgents and increase their attacks. But if handled right, a postponement need not convey weakness or lack of resolve.
Moreover, there is little evidence that insurgents time their violence by a political calendar. Trends since April 2003 tend to show a gradual growth in the insurgency and in casualty rates among Iraqis and Americans—not spikes linked to major political events. The insurgents attack as much as they can at any given moment; it is, more or less, just that simple.
Thus our goal must be not to affect their psychology but to defeat them and to reduce their ability to recruit and gain other support from the Iraqi people. The election date is largely irrelevant to the first goal. And a later date would probably help us achieve the second.
Under these circumstances, a one-time delay in Iraqi elections makes sense. But it must be handled correctly to retain Shi'ite and Kurdish support and the Iraqi people's confidence in general. Specifically:
- Postponement should be announced by Iraqis, starting with the Shi'ite prime minister and Sunni Arab president, as well as other politicians from the government and from various opposition movements. Americans need to take a back seat.
- The postponement should be for a specific, limited period—perhaps three months—long enough to permit a vigorous political campaign, but not enough to cause concern that democracy in Iraq has been fundamentally set back.
- Any postponement should be accompanied by a pledge from as many major Sunni political figures as possible to use the time granted to campaign seriously for office. They should publicly accept the new date as fixed, promise not to boycott the elections and encourage fellow Sunnis to vote.
- We will be unable to defeat the insurgency in a few more months, or even ensure completely safe voting. Postponement should not be explained on such security grounds.
- Rather, with the support of the United States and other countries, Prime Minister Allawi and other Iraqi leaders should say elections are being postponed explicitly as a good-faith gesture to allow Sunnis a full role in the political process. That is the real goal, and we should say so.
- But at the same time, it must be clear this is a one-time change. Even if one delay would be unlikely to convey weakness, multiple delays could. The accelerated timetable for giving Iraqis back their country in full this year is basically sound and indeed necessary.
But there is some tactical flexibility on exactly how this is done. And the time to employ that flexibility is now.
Michael O'Hanlon is senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
The Washington Times
The Brookings Institute |
Last edited by Me#1You#10 on Fri Jan 14, 2005 10:11 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DADESID
Seaman
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 157
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2005 9:45 pm Post subject: Re: Wash Times Commentary: Delay Iraq Elections? |
|
|
| Me#1You#10 wrote: | I thought this was an interesting commentary on the topic of considering a delay in the Iraqi election. Perhaps, as the author suggests, it might be a realistic means of encouraging full participation of the Sunni population...
| Quote: | Iraqi Elections: Time for Flexibility
Michael E. O'Hanlon, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies
The Washington Times
January 9, 2005
Up until now, President Bush has been right to insist elections in Iraq will be held on schedule Jan. 30. To show weakness on this would have angered Shi'ites and Kurds, who want their country back after decades of Sunni oppression. It would also have convinced Sunni Arabs not to bother preparing for elections that probably wouldn't happen on schedule anyway. It would have given up too soon, for no real benefit.
But it's time for flexibility. The strategy of having elections Jan. 30 probably will not work well because Sunni Arab turnout seems likely to be very low. Many Sunni politicians have bowed out. And public opinion polls show markedly less Sunni enthusiasm than among Iraq's other major ethnic and religious groups. Very little turnout is likely.
Given the voting system Iraq is to use in January, which does not include regional representation as in the U.S. Congress, very few Sunni Arab politicians would get elected.
The likely result is more anger among Sunnis, greater estrangement from the rest of the Iraqi population and greater sympathy and support for an insurgency that remains Sunni-dominated. Everyone will suffer, not just the Sunnis.
Therefore, an increasing number of top Sunni political figures, including some who are very moderate and pro-American (such as former Interim President Pachachi) have decided there is no choice: The elections should be postponed. They are right.
Some say showing flexibility now will embolden insurgents and increase their attacks. But if handled right, a postponement need not convey weakness or lack of resolve.
Moreover, there is little evidence that insurgents time their violence by a political calendar. Trends since April 2003 tend to show a gradual growth in the insurgency and in casualty rates among Iraqis and Americans—not spikes linked to major political events. The insurgents attack as much as they can at any given moment; it is, more or less, just that simple.
Thus our goal must be not to affect their psychology but to defeat them and to reduce their ability to recruit and gain other support from the Iraqi people. The election date is largely irrelevant to the first goal. And a later date would probably help us achieve the second.
Under these circumstances, a one-time delay in Iraqi elections makes sense. But it must be handled correctly to retain Shi'ite and Kurdish support and the Iraqi people's confidence in general. Specifically:
Postponement should be announced by Iraqis, starting with the Shi'ite prime minister and Sunni Arab president, as well as other politicians from the government and from various opposition movements. Americans need to take a back seat.
The postponement should be for a specific, limited period—perhaps three months—long enough to permit a vigorous political campaign, but not enough to cause concern that democracy in Iraq has been fundamentally set back.
Any postponement should be accompanied by a pledge from as many major Sunni political figures as possible to use the time granted to campaign seriously for office. They should publicly accept the new date as fixed, promise not to boycott the elections and encourage fellow Sunnis to vote.
We will be unable to defeat the insurgency in a few more months, or even ensure completely safe voting. Postponement should not be explained on such security grounds.
Rather, with the support of the United States and other countries, Prime Minister Allawi and other Iraqi leaders should say elections are being postponed explicitly as a good-faith gesture to allow Sunnis a full role in the political process. That is the real goal, and we should say so.
But at the same time, it must be clear this is a one-time change. Even if one delay would be unlikely to convey weakness, multiple delays could. The accelerated timetable for giving Iraqis back their country in full this year is basically sound and indeed necessary.
But there is some tactical flexibility on exactly how this is done. And the time to employ that flexibility is now.
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20050109.htm |
|
I don't know....
Maybe we should have postponed the November 1864 election, so as not to piss off the Confederates. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2005 10:22 pm Post subject: Re: Wash Times Commentary: Delay Iraq Elections? |
|
|
| DADESID wrote: |
I don't know....
Maybe we should have postponed the November 1864 election, so as not to piss off the Confederates. |
It seems worthy of considering the upside/downside of either course. If a delay can realistically produce (as the author seems to suggest) a commitment of support from Sunni leadership, I believe that would far outweigh whatever political damge might ensue from a timetable adjustment. I think I come down on the side of getting it right as opposed to getting it ontime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DADESID
Seaman
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 157
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:50 am Post subject: Re: Wash Times Commentary: Delay Iraq Elections? |
|
|
| Me#1You#10 wrote: | | DADESID wrote: |
I don't know....
Maybe we should have postponed the November 1864 election, so as not to piss off the Confederates. |
It seems worthy of considering the upside/downside of either course. If a delay can realistically produce (as the author seems to suggest) a commitment of support from Sunni leadership, I believe that would far outweigh whatever political damge might ensue from a timetable adjustment. I think I come down on the side of getting it right as opposed to getting it ontime. |
Getting it right is what they tried to do at Panmunjom in the '50s. No matter how much you "cave", they want a little bit more.
I say, tell them: "The train is leaving the station on the 30th. You are welcome aboard, or you can remain on the platform." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rparrott21
Master Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 760
Location: Mckinney, Texas
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The elections will go on...they will not be perfect, but it will be a starting point.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
The author is from the BROOKINGS INSTITUTE, the darling of the
Liberal Left, NPR, PBS, and NYTimes. It echoes the mantra from
the Libs--This election won't be fair, the results will be illegitimate!
Maybe we should have postponed our Presidential Election from
November to February to give Kerry more time to organize his
pathetic campaign.
The fact is that the numbers aren't there for the Sunnis whether
the election is held this month or three months from now.
The result will be the same either way and same complaint will be made
either way. The left will decry its illegitimacy.
We promised the Iraqi people an election on January 30 and it should
not be delayed.
Read Victor Davis Hanson at http://www.swiftvets.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=18112
The defeatists cannot prevail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
PS.--Do a Google search using Brookings Institute Liberal Left.
You can scroll through pages and pages to see why I call them leftists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dcornutt
PO3
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 267
Location: Brooklyn, NY
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
The elections should go forward as planned. They can save some seats for sunni's based on their population and have them elected later. When the sunni's see that the constitution is being put together without them..they'll either jump in to participate for their own interest or they will continue insurgency at all costs...which would not matter if they delayed election or not if that's the case.
It's very possible..that the sunni's will not accept "any" form of gov that is shiah led..in which case there will be a civil war of sorts at some point. This is entirely possible...and needs to happen if that's the case before things can move on. We had one "here" in the US.
The more that they see that this is inevitable and will happen...the more they will recognize that fighting against it and not participating is only marginalizing themselves and they will drop this and move to participate. The elections happening..even without them...is very important in that regard. It shows things moving foward..and puts the gov...entirely in elected Iraqi hands...where a constitution will be ironed out.
If their objection is the entire process..they won't stop fighting it anyway..in which case "delaying" it isn't going to help in that regard. They have to be convinced that a shiah led democratic gov is going to rule Iraq. When they are...they will either stop this and participate or know they will be marginalized..or they will fight to the death rather than submit to such a form of gov in which case...a civil war with the rest of Iraq will be inevitable..and necessary..before there will ever be peace there.
I think the biggest thing that sticks in my craw...is France, etc..and Kofi..criticizing that there needs to be more troops, security before elections will be credible...while they sit on their hands and watch and are not willing to send "troops". That I think, in the end, after this is all said and done and long over, will be something that will be remembered later when this is looked back on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| shawa wrote: | PS.--Do a Google search using Brookings Institute Liberal Left.
You can scroll through pages and pages to see why I call them leftists. |
Shawa, this is getting a bit off-topic but, FWIW, after visiting several links, I'm getting the impression that Brookings is somewhat "centrist". I'm assuming the Washington Times (certainly no friend of progressive thought) found the author's comments to be worth a look and, as I said earlier, so did I. Your mileage may vary.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tacan70UDN
PO2
Joined: 05 Sep 2004
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| My two cents' worth - I recently saw that about 50-percent of the Iraqis eligible to register and vote would do so. That compares very favorably to what we seem to do in this country. If the Sunnis in the Triangle refuse to participate, then they've effectively chosen to vote against their own interests. IMO - there is no reason to postpone the elections and every reason to go ahead. This is the first of three elections scheduled this year, if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps when they see the first one go ahead without them, they'll partake in the others - again, perhaps not. If the reason for all the violence is that mainsteam Sunnis feel threatened by the elections, and that the Shia will do to them what the Sunnis did to the Shia for all those years, the violence will not cease in any event. Go ahead with the elections - it's a start, and as we learn again and again here, no election is ever perfect. One last thought: the leftist, liberal media and their cohorts have forecast doom and gloom over and over again, and it usually hasn't happened. Why would we think they would be correct about this election?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scotty61
LCDR
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 419
Location: Glyndon MN
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is a lot of pressure from the left to delay this election so they can declare a measure of victory for themselves and loss for the president. One of the reasons for delay they put forward is that Iraqis will not come out ot vote due to fear of retaliation.
I cannot recall the author, but he ran the stats and the amount of Iraqis killed by "insurgents" per capita is 50% of the per capita highway fatalities in the US.
If the risk of being killed does not keep us from driving, why should half the risk keep Iraqis from voting? Only in the mind of a liberal would this make sense.
_________________
John Kerry. A Neville Chamberlain for our times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beatrice1000
Resource Specialist
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 1179
Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2005 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Some Iraqis talk about the elections:
< In Cafe Debate, a Victory for Elections >
At Intersection of Old and New Iraq, the Vote Itself Is What Counts
By Anthony Shadid, Washington Post Foreign Service, 1/14/05
BAGHDAD, Jan. 13: ...."Going to the polling stations is a victory for the Iraqi people," said Ali Danif, a 45-year-old writer.
"The elections are more important than the candidates," insisted Jamal Karim, his garrulous friend.
Not to be outdone, a smiling Suheil Yassin jumped in. "It's one of my wishes to die at the gate of the polling station," he said, a gesture that was self-consciously dramatic. "I want to be a martyr for the ballot box." ......
"I'm not persuaded by the elections," declared Abdel-Rahman Abbas, 60, a former municipal worker with a well-groomed mustache and blue sports jacket. "The Americans can do what they want, and they've already made up their mind." ..... And he gave voice to the nostalgia evoked so often here: In his mind, the monarchy that fell in 1958 would be as good as any government. But Abbas was a lone voice. Not that others thought the elections would be conducted peacefully; few didn't predict violence. But many of the writers, critics and intellectuals seemed to suggest that the price was worth paying. .....
Outside the door are election posters bearing promises: "Elections equal security and stability," says one. "Iraq First," says another. .....
Yassin sipped his tea, then spoke up. "With the election," he said, "the pages of the totalitarian order will be turned and never opened again." .....
"The Americans will leave," Karim said. "They will leave like the other occupiers, whether it's a short period or long." In the meantime, the three men said, they would remain hopeful.
"I'm optimistic 1,000 percent," Danif exclaimed.
Karim nodded. "I'm twice as optimistic," he said.
Yassin smiled. "I'm optimistic, but I know there will be obstacles and difficulties." He nodded to the others and said: "It's just the beginning."
--------------------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
srmorton
PO2
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 383
Location: Jacksonville, NC
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wonder why we don't see or hear positive Iraqi comments like
this in the NYT or on ABC, CBS, or NBC???
_________________
Susan R. Morton |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
