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 ([email protected]) is a third-year law student.
