After the Iraqi Election, Self-Congratulation Abounds
It's a good time to be an orthopedic surgeon
in a red state,
because lots of Republicans have dislocated their shoulders
patting themselves on the back. They interpret the Jan.
30 elections in Iraq as a rousing vindication of the administration's
policies, as well as a stinging rebuke to its critics.
"America's willful defeatists,"
crowed National Review Online,
"look particularly puny in light of the millions who
turned out to vote because they believe in the new Iraq."
But what did the elections prove that comes
as any surprise?
Contrary to the claims of the administration's supporters,
critics of the war never opposed letting Iraqis vote. Nor
did they say Iraqis lacked interest in voting. In fact,
since the 2003 invasion, the chief obstacle to elections
in Iraq was the Bush administration.
Under the U.S. occupation, it took nearly
two years to bring
about this introduction to democracy. For much of that time,
the Shiite leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani was demanding
early elections to choose a government and the American
occupation authority was refusing, preferring a complicated
system of regional caucuses. No one in the White House has
fond memories of last January, when 100,000 Shiites were
in Baghdad to protest the delay in direct elections.
The Bush administration wanted to put off
a vote for several
reasons. One was the supposed lack of reliable voter rolls.
Another was the fear the Shiites would win and demand an
Iran-style Islamic regime.
Finally, no one in the White House wanted
an Iraqi election
during the American presidential campaign, for fear it would
go badly and impede Bush's re-election. The administration
obviously had doubts about how democracy would play in Iraq.
You might even say the president was defeatist.
For all the triumphal pronouncements, no
one knows yet what the actual turnout was. But it would
not be a surprise if Iraq's Shiites and Kurds turned out
in force, any more than it would be a surprise to find beer
drinkers at a bar.
The Shiites are keen on democracy mainly
because they account
for some 60 percent of the population. When you have 60
percent of the electorate, what's not to like about majority
rule? The Kurds have the semi-autonomous enclave of Kurdistan,
and they made it clear all along they would go to the polls
to protect it.
The real question on Jan. 30 was whether
Sunnis would vote in
substantial numbers, and there is little evidence so far
to suggest they did. Their turnout was so low in Saddam
Hussein's home province of Salahuddin, where they constitute
a majority, that the Shiite coalition actually led in the
Why does it matter if the Sunnis voted?
Because they are at the
core of the insurgency. Sunnis, who are 20 percent of the
population, are accustomed to holding power and are fearful
of how they will fare if the Shiites are in charge. If the
Sunnis didn't vote, they'll have little representation in
the new parliament, little say in drafting the new constitution
and little reason to reject violent resistance.
Fervent Bush supporters act as though it's
a miracle to be able
to get voters to the polls amid so much unrest. In fact,
there are plenty of cases where elections attracted lots
of voters despite the bombs and bullets flying around them
-- El Salvador in 1982, Uruguay in 1971, even Russia during
the 1917 revolution. Having a well-attended election, as
the Russians can attest, doesn't guarantee a happy outcome.
It's also wishful thinking to suppose that
the Iraqis who voted
share President Bush's shining vision of a free democracy
friendly to the United States. A poll in August found that
70 percent of Iraqis want an Islamic state.
As for the prevailing attitude toward America,
the leader of the
Shiite coalition that finished first in the election said
afterward, "No one welcomes foreign troops in Iraq."
Writes Juan Cole, a Middle East specialist at the University
of Michigan, "Most Shiites who voted on Sunday thought
they were voting for an end to U.S. hegemony in their country."
The people who are the real problem in
Iraq, of course, are the
insurgents, who are not about to be appeased by the chance
to vote. On the contrary, the bloodshed has surged in recent
days. As of Wednesday, 15 American soldiers and 153 Iraqis
have died in attacks since the elections.
The election was an inspiring spectacle,
but an assessment of
its effect on the fate of Iraq will have to wait. The self-congratulation
should wait as well.
Today's Article to a Friend