Opinion
Election results defy predictions
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Rob Deters:
- SUVs and Earth Day do not mix (April 24, 2003)
- Reflections on 'real world' (April 27, 2005)
- Lessons gathered while in Madison (May 5, 2005)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Now that the election returns have come back from Iraq, we can conclusively say one thing.
Most of what the neoconservatives predicted would happen in Iraq did not come true. The best-laid American plans have gone awry. Explaining these results and the possible future of Iraq to the parents of the dead and the thousands of maimed and wounded soldiers is going to be tough.
The largest Shiite party in Iraq won just short of 48 percent of the vote. Although this was lower than they expected, it will still put half of the National Assembly in the hands of one party.
The Kurds captured a surprising 25 percent of the vote.
The current Prime Minister Iyad Allawi won only 13 percent of the vote.
U.S. backed Adnan Pachachi, who sat next to Laura Bush a year ago during the State of the Union, failed to win enough votes to get a single seat in the new National Assembly. Pachachi had advocated a hold in the election January 5, claiming that security would be too bad to hold a legitimate election.
How legitimate was the election?
Some provinces turned out in pitiful numbers. Only 2 percent of voters turned out in the Anbar province and 17 percent in Ninevah, both Sunni strongholds. Where the insurgency is strongest, voters were completely intimidated. The lack of Sunni participation, which was predicted, could seriously undermine the drafting of a new Iraqi constitution.
The vote certification has been taking quite awhile because of accusations of rampant voter fraud. Namely, votes have been known to be for sale to Iranians who could receive forged citizenship papers.
In fact, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the Shia party that captured the most votes, fought alongside Iran in the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s. While many observers aren’t sure that Iraq wants to be anything but its own state, without a doubt, future relations with Iran will be cozy.
Is this why we fought? To elect a religious national assembly about to prepare the constitution that represents a group that wants to secede (the Kurds), a group that wants to improve relations with a member of the axis of evil (the Shiites) and then a hodgepodge of smaller groups, including firebrand cleric Moktada al-Sadr (two to three seats won) and the Iraqi Communist Party (two to three seats won)?
It will be telling to see how Republicans react to the election. As far as what we planned or wanted going in, there is no way to spin this as a victory for Bush’s foreign policy. We do not have an immediately pro-U.S. government establishing their country, and nearly one third of the country who are very important in reconciling years of ethnic and religious strife in Iraq completely ignored the election.
I find it telling that at least election-wise, communists and radical Muslim clerics are more popular than the United States.
Can George Bush look the next young man without legs he visits at Walter Reed in the eye and say, “Son, you did well. Your efforts brought about a free Iraq. An Iraq free to reject our values, cozy up to our enemies and frighten our allies.”
Of course not.
The vision in the Middle East was a secular, pro-American Iraq that held orderly elections and provided a beacon for other Middle Eastern countries to follow.
Ironically, by electing the government they wanted, Iraq has shown the United States just how impossible that dream was.
To be sure, there are secularists willing to advance an Iraqi future that is religious but not strident. It was fantastic that women voted, which made a mockery of the recent elections held in Saudi Arabia where they did not. That Iraq is choosing its own adventure is a great achievement.
On the other hand, now that Iraq got what it wanted, will the United States let them keep it?
Rob Deters (rvdeters@wisc.edu) is a third-year law student.
10 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Muckrakers
President’s Visit Marked a Speech to One of the Last Groups Not Critical of Him
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
Teehee! Radical Muslim theocratic freedom is on the March!!! Maybe we should send some more kids to die so we can re-establish the Khmer Rouge!
Rob Deters (rvdeters@wisc.edu) is a the Herald's one-trick pony.
So Rob- I have a question for you. If the exact same thing happened under a John Kerry presidency, would there be "no way to spin this as a victory for Kerry's foreign policy."? Wait I'll answer my own question: of course not!
We all get your point and understand that you think Bush is the worst president ever. Now go find some other point to make. Or better yet, get out into the real world and see how well your moronic leftist views hold up.
So Rob- I have a question for you. If the exact same thing happened under a John Kerry presidency, would there be "no way to spin this as a victory for Kerry's foreign policy."? Wait I'll answer my own question: of course not!
We all get your point and understand that you think Bush is the worst president ever. Now go find some other point to make. Or better yet, get out into the real world and see how well your moronic leftist views hold up.
Hey Deters,
Are you from New York City?
***
When Good News Feels Bad
After Iraq's vote, New York liberals are in a serious moral-ideological-emotional bind. And the only way out is to root for Bush's victory.
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/columns/imperialcity/11076/index.html
Each of us has a Hobbesian choice concerning Iraq; either we hope for the vindication of Bush's risky, very possibly reckless policy, or we are in a de facto alliance with the killers of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. We can be angry with Bush for bringing us to this nasty ethical crossroads, but here we are nonetheless.
Rob Deters here...
People seem to miss the point in their commentary.
What is the use of overthrowing Iraq and then having them democratically elect a government that still doesn't like us? I mean, besides upholding democracy as a value, I thought the idea behind removing Saddam was removing a THREAT to the United States. How does electing a religious government to write their constitution (yes, I'm aware that this isn't their new government, it's interim) solve our security problems in the Middle East?
By the way, the poster who noted that this wouldn't be different under Kerry is absolutely right. The die was cast two and half years ago, and I would not be hailing this election now under Kerry as any different.
The point is that we invaded Iraq to make ourselves more secure. I want someone to point out to me how that is currently true. In any fashion. Please.
And if you point simply to Saddam being gone, I assert, with no weapons of mass destruction at all (and his intentions are moot since he had little capability) what have we gained?
This argument is, if you can make it, going to be difficult. If the anonymous posters on here are willing to take up the challenege...do it.
The irony is that thirty or forty years ago, Bush wouldn't have had all this flowery language about spreading freedom. We put our courses of action a bit more bluntly. Today, Bush dresses up his actions in the language of the side he purportedly disagrees with...the language of multilateralism and internationalism. If liberals and international institution builders are so out of touch with reality, why does Bush use their terminology to describe his actions?
The fact is, Bush has no coherent foreign policy. Nations that are currently a huge threat are given the carrot (North Korea) and countries that are not a threat (Iraq) are given the steel toed boot.
It's hypocrisy, it's poorly thought out...it's Bush to a T.
No, what you forget is that what the elections were held for in the first place Rob. We did not go in to "force Iraq to accept a Democracy" as you seem to believe. We fought in order that Iraq would have a "choice" to elect a government of their choosing. By rejecting the US backed leader, it truly shows how "free" the people of Iraq are. If they wanted to elect another dictator so be it. The point of the whole damn exercise was they had a say in the outcome of their government for the first time in over 50 years. Let's see we also have voter fraud in the US, a hell of a lot lower turn out and our own problems with elections. Does this make our own electorial process any less important or imparative? The whole purpose was to allow the Iraqi people the freedom to choose whom they wanted to elect and thus they did without us "over ruling" their election just because we did not like the outcome. Let's see I remember us going to war to free Russia from the Germans, free the Chinese from the Japanese and free Cuba from Spain. Today and shortly after all of these countries soon turned to a government that was at odds with, and most times openly hostile to the US?? Should the war against Nazism be held any less relevant or the actions of those who fought in WWII be seen as less than heroic and lacking of value simply because a good half of those countries freed later turned to communism?? Do not let yourself not be able to see the forest for the trees. The issue was not that the Iraqi's elected a government that might be hostile towards the US. The whole damn point was the fact the Iraqi's were able to elect ANY BODY at all.
The point actually is that the Bush Crime syndicate now has millions more in the bank while thousands of people are dead. That's actually the point. I'll take a dictator over being dead any day. At least with a dictator I can prevent getting killed, with indiscriminate bombings and shootings who knows?
I'd rather have a democracy that doesn't like us than a dictator.
3L
"At least with a dictator I can prevent getting killed"
How? You planning on being the dictator?