Iraqi Voter Turnout

[The Flying Dutchman]

Short Debate.

1. Predict Voter Turnout.

2. What turnout do you think is neccessary in order to validate this election?

3. Could a high outcome legitimize US involvement?

My answers:

1. 67%

2. 60%

3. Yes.

[Kimstu]

grienspace: 2. What turnout do you think is neccessary in order to validate this election?

Is there a reason why we should think that the validity of the election depends only on the size of the turnout? I'm more troubled about the fact that so many candidates have felt compelled to run anonymously in order to avoid assassination attempts, and that it's consequently so difficult for voters to get information about the different political options. As a recent article (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/27/news/edlone.html) by Salim Lone noted,

As one voter told CNN, he would prefer to vote for George Michael, since he knows more about the singer than about any of the candidates running for office.


I mean, at least three of the candidates have already been killed (http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2005/01/19/57899.html), the borders are closed, and extended curfews are in effect. Is this really a free, fair, democratic election, even if more than 60% of voters actually go to the polls?

In any case, I don't think it's our opinion of the elections' validity that's going to be important here.

[Squink]

In addition to a good turnout, they'll also need to be evidence that the political process has a direction. With over a hundred groups on the ballot, and the names of potential officeholders not widely known, there's a good chance that any sign of direction for the country will be swamped by noise.
Ghazi Al Yawir, our alleged current president, was giving an interview on LBC yesterday. Apparently, he and Allawi aren't on the same election list anymore because they had a falling out as to who should head the list. Ghazi proposed the president should be the head of the list and Allawi claimed somebody Shia (Allawi himself) should head the list. Now, Allawi's group is 285 on the election ballot and Yawir's group is 288, I think. here (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/)

[Abbie Carmichael]

1. 50% or less.

2. Any turnout. If only, say, 10% show up, I imagine it will be those 10% that decide who wins. I can't see us going "OK, people, that election was just for practice, the REAL election will be in March!"

If there is a pitiful voter turnout, then the Iraqi people will begin to learn Lesson One of Democracy: you don't get to bitch if you're too lazy to vote. :)

3. No. Those who think the US should never have done this will continue to think so regardless. Those who think the US was right to do this will continue to think so regardless.

[rjung]

It's worth reminding that the election is not about choosing a Grand Poo-Bah Leader of Iraq, but of simply electing a 200+-member council who will serve as an interim government while a Constitution is drafted and all that other long, tedious, boring stuff gets hammered out.

Not that it'll stop Bush from claiming "Mission Accomplished" again, though I suspect he'll have enough sense to leave the banner in the closet this time...

[Squink]

New Zogby Poll January 28th:
Survey Finds Deep Divisions in Iraq; Sunni Arabs Overwhelmingly Reject Sunday Elections; Majority of Sunnis, Shiites Favor U.S. Withdrawal, New Abu Dhabi TV / Zogby Poll Reveals (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=957)
More on the poll at Juan Cole (http://www.juancole.com/2005/01/zogby-9-of-sunnis-will-vote-stong.html) Sunni Arabs who say they will vote on Sunday: 9%
Sunni Arabs who say they definitely will not vote on Sunday: 76%
Shiites who say they likely or definitely will vote: 80%
Kurds who say they likely or definitely will vote: 56%

With the population being 60% Shiite, 20% Kurdish, and 20% Sunni, that works out to a projected voter turnout of 61%.

[Squink]

Iraq's president acknowledges that talk is cheap: (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20050129/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_president_turnout) "We hope everyone will participate," President Ghazi al-Yawer said at a news conference the day before the vote. "But the majority prefer not to participate for fear of going out to polling stations."

[BobLibDem]

1. I guess that much less than half of those eligible will indeed vote. Those that do will probably pass on the "I voted" sticker.

2. I don't think any turnout will validate the election. When people don't know who they're voting for and where to go and they might get killed if they do, it's not quite the same as a free and honest election.

3. No. Nothing that can happen now would justify the invasion and occupation.

[FriarTed]

1. 50% or less.

2. Any turnout. If only, say, 10% show up, I imagine it will be those 10% that decide who wins. I can't see us going "OK, people, that election was just for practice, the REAL election will be in March!"

If there is a pitiful voter turnout, then the Iraqi people will begin to learn Lesson One of Democracy: you don't get to bitch if you're too lazy to vote. :)

3. No. Those who think the US should never have done this will continue to think so regardless. Those who think the US was right to do this will continue to think so regardless.

To be fair, I'm sure many who won't vote aren't refraining out of laziness, but fear of the terrorists (they're terrorists, not insurgents- someone using violence to prevent election-participation is a terrorist).

I hope for at least 50%, optimistically expect 40%, & agree on 3. Assuming that there are indeed no WMDs (and that they just haven't been very well hidden), I think we still should have done something to remove Saddam but I'm not sure if the War as we've pursued it should have been the way. Imagine my surprise to find that I am only slightly to the Right of Robert Redford on this issue.

[Frankenstein Monster]

The worst problem with respect to "legitimizing" the outcome, is the fact that Sunnis will be underrepresented in the vote. This phenomenon will be closely watched. I think the OP should add something about Shiite / Kurd / Sunni turnout to the poll. I propose:

1a. Predict Shiite, Kurd and Sunni turnout.

My bet:

1. 63% (overall)
1a. 75%, 75%, 15%

2. Sunni > 40% (I think the actual legitimacy in practice is going to be determined by how the majority parties are going to accommodate Sunni influence anyway, in spite of low Sunni turnout)

3. No.

[Magiver]

This is a vote to create a legislative branch which will in turn formalize a constitution and vote in a PM. The lack of Sunni involvement in this stage can be dealt with through assignment. While this hurts the image of Sunni representation it will be the following election that determines whether or not they accept the transition.

My WAG:

1. 69% overall
80% Shiite, 65% kurd 40% Sunni (based population est of 60%/20%/20%)

2. Depends on the level of violence but 50% is a start.

3. Doesn't matter. Positive credit will never be acknowledged.


This seems high but I base this on recent Shiite clerical edicts (to vote) and Sunni involvement in the former socialist Baath party. Religion will drive the one, and lifestyle will drive the other. The Zogby poll for Kurds just doesn't look right.

[Magiver]

I would like to add that, despite the threat of death, I expect the turnout to be better than the average US election rate of 50%.

[RTFirefly]

1. Hell if I know.

2. The problem isn't overall numbers; it's the differing attitudes of the different components of the Iraqi population towards the election.

3. There's nothing that could be done now to retroactively legitimize our invasion.

I think these are the wrong questions altogether.

[Frankenstein Monster]

Now this is fun... I would have bet more Sunni turnout (30%) but I reduced it after reading the Zogby poll. I hope I'm wrong.

[XT]

I think Zogby is wrong...hell, they have been wrong before (note Bush has been re-elected :)).

1. Predict Voter Turnout.

Overall I predict 70% of the total population will vote.

2. What turnout do you think is neccessary in order to validate this election?

Depends on what the Iraqi's think validates it (or doesn't validate it). After all, Clinton was elected and less than 50% of the voters voted...and he was certainly a valid president. I don't think the numbers alone are going to either validate the vote or not validate the vote.

3. Could a high outcome legitimize US involvement?

No number will legitimize the US involvement IMO...or NOT legitimzie it. Its a separate issue IMO. If it was wrong to invade Iraq then nothing that happens makes it right...it just might mitigate things if it all works out, but it will never be legitimate. If it was right for the US to invade than it doesn't matter if the election was a complete flop...it was still the right thing to do.

-XT

[hildea]

1. Predict Voter Turnout.

I'm guessing about 20%. In Sweden, less than 25% exile Iraqis in Sweden have registered for voting. Among all exile Iraqis, it's less than 20% -- and that's (mostly) without the security problems in Iraq...

2. What turnout do you think is neccessary in order to validate this election?

What Kimstu said. But if it goes above 60% I'll call it a hopeful sign for possible future valid elections.

3. Could a high outcome legitimize US involvement?

What? Why? Do you mean legitimize the war? No, of course not.
What would have gone a long way towards validating the war -- or at least have made me admit (with relief) that I was far too pessimistic beforehand: In five or ten years a reasonably stable, mostly human rights respecting, somewhat democratic Iraq, with a total body count (from the onset of the war) significantly lower than a continuing Saddam regime.


[highjack, but related to the topic]
Does anyone know or guess why voters in exile have to register and vote in person? When we have elections in Norway, voters can vote by mail. But for the Iraqi election, exile voters have to travel in person to the closest polling place. They also had to travel in person to register. And the closest polling place can be several hundred kilometers away (there are none in Norway, and only two in Sweden), so voting is very time consuming and expensive.

[Squink]

This evening, Dan Rather informed us from Iraq that we're ready to spin a 20% to 30% turnout as a victory for freedom and democracy.

[Brutus]

This evening, Dan Rather informed us from Iraq that we're ready to spin a 20% to 30% turnout as a victory for freedom and democracy.

What secret documents did he glean that nugget from?

[elucidator]

20% to 30% is a crushing landslide avalanche of a victory! 10% to 20% will be pretty doggone good, gosh darn it, because fledgling democracy is messy and chaotic. 0% to 5% will be a defeat. Well, really, more like a temporary setback, because freedom is on the march. Less than that, that would be a defeat.

[XT]

This evening, Dan Rather informed us from Iraq that we're ready to spin a 20% to 30% turnout as a victory for freedom and democracy.

And if its higher, what does he have to say about that? At what point does Danny Boy (the pipes the pipes are playing) Rather think it WILL be a 'victory for freedom and democracy'? Talk about poisoning the well. Oh well...it IS Dan Rather. ;)

-XT

[Magiver]

This evening, Dan Rather informed us from Iraq that we're ready to spin a 20% to 30% turnout as a victory for freedom and democracy.
I'd rather watch watch other news groups than CBS so I missed Dan's predition. What excactly did he say?

[RickJay]

Are we talking turnout over the entire country, or just in the areas they're holding a vote? If the former, I wouldn't believe 60%. That's just insanely high.

[Squink]

What excactly did he say?You'll have to dig up a quote for that, as I don't recall verbatim. If turnout reaches 50%, I'm sure some blogger'll dig up and post his words within a couple of days.

[Frostillicus]

What's confusing to me is how the Iraqi voters will know WHO to vote for. With over 100 political parties, it's going to be extremely difficult to know what more than a few stand for. And with most if not all politicians too afraid to openly campaign, how are they getting their message across to potential voters? Or will it be a case of voting for a candidate strictly because of the religious group to which they belong? :confused:

[Squink]

There's another factor here that'll affect the percent of voters who cast ballots. According to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4219569.stm), there are "28,000 voting booths in some 5,300 polling centres" and the polls will be open for 10 hours. With roughly 14 million eligible voters (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6882523/), each booth will have to accommodate 500 voters, or one voter every 1.2 minutes for the full 10 hours to achieve a 100% turnout. Clearly that’s impossible, but to achieve even a 33% turnout, the voting booths will have to be constantly full, and the voters will have to take an average of only 3.6 minutes to cast their ballot.
We don’t do it that fast in America, even when the ballots are simple.

[DanBlather]

20% to 30% is a crushing landslide avalanche of a victory! 10% to 20% will be pretty doggone good, gosh darn it, because fledgling democracy is messy and chaotic. 0% to 5% will be a defeat. Well, really, more like a temporary setback, because freedom is on the march. Less than that, that would be a defeat.One doesn't march to freedom on defeat one wants, but on defeat one has. But make sure you dress warmly, even if it is somewhat casual.

[Eleusis]

20% to 30% is a crushing landslide avalanche of a victory! 10% to 20% will be pretty doggone good, gosh darn it, because fledgling democracy is messy and chaotic. 0% to 5% will be a defeat. Well, really, more like a temporary setback, because freedom is on the march. Less than that, that would be a defeat.

The polls close in less than 30 minutes, and so far they're saying close to 72% turnouts.

What's that mean? You'll suck dubya's cock?

[MEBuckner]

You'll suck dubya's cock?
Moderator's Note: Eleusis, I'd say that clearly falls under the ban on "say[ing] or imply[ing] that your fellow posters achieve sexual gratification or soil themselves in glee/distress" (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=4749265) in Great Debates. Tone it down, now.

[Eleusis]

Moderator's Note: Eleusis, I'd say that clearly falls under the ban on "say[ing] or imply[ing] that your fellow posters achieve sexual gratification or soil themselves in glee/distress" (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=4749265) in Great Debates. Tone it down, now.
Oops! I'm really sorry, my bad.

Just really happy and celebrating....

I'm not used to GD....

Sincere apologies to all.

[Fear Itself]

Just really happy and celebrating....About what? The overall turnout is meaningless. Even if the Shiites turn out 100%, if there is no meaningful participation by the Sunnis, the election is a sham. What good is an election if it is merely a prelude to civil war?

[Eleusis]

About what? The overall turnout is meaningless.
HAHAHAHHAAAAAAA!!!!!

Please, you know this is a victory for the entire free world.

Now give up your partisan hate, post haste, it's very distasteful.

Even if the Shiites turn out 100%, if there is no meaningful participation by the Sunnis, the election is a sham. What good is an election if it is merely a prelude to civil war?

Your user name suits you.

[Avenger]

At least 30 people have been killed. Large numbers of one section of the Iraqi populace do not seem to be taking part in the political process with the obvious dangers that that suggests. The campaign featured candidates who felt obligated to campaign anonymously out of fear.

I mean, I can understand and share the hope that this is the start of a brighter future for the country, but celebrating , really?

[Eleusis]

Don't bump this thread any more...

Here's the REAL ONE (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=299641)....

[Squink]

Has anyone seen any quasi-reliable figures? Eleusis' 70%+ comes from the latest incarnation of Baghdad Bob: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4220551.stm) About 90 minutes before polls closed, Iraq's electoral commission said turnout was estimated at 72% - significantly higher than expected.

Electoral official Adil al-Lami did not explain how these figures had been reached. He said voting hours would be extended at polling stations where people were still queuing. polling stations in many Sunni-dominated cities in the centre of Iraq were closed or deserted, as voters stayed away out of fear of attack or opposition to the poll.

[Rashak Mani]

Please, you know this is a victory for the entire free world.
Please define the "free world" ?
The US is not the leader of any "free world" either. (the problem being the "leader" part too...)

[Eleusis]

I never said anything about the U.S. being the leader of anything.....

I meant freedom in general....

Can we agree that democracy is good?

[Rashak Mani]

I think the problem is your using some of the same expressions we see used by "conservatives". By saying "free world" you bring all sort of connotations and a sense of superiority that defines Bushie America to many... or at least to me.

The "free world" used to be non-communist... now its become kind of meaningless when its obvious that national interests come ahead of "freedom" for others for example.

[Squink]

Don't bump this thread any more...

Here's the REAL ONE (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=00000)....
Who died and and made you junior mod?
You've pissed all over this thread.
You've pissed all over that thread.
If you're feeling so hysterically celebratory that you can't control your ejaculations, you should not be posting in GD at all.

[Rashak Mani]

If you're feeling so hysterically celebratory that you can't control your ejaculations, you should not be posting in GD at all.
NOOO !! The mental image of it !!! NOOOO !!! :eek:

[RickJay]

I note that my question still has no been answered.

Are these guesses and runing estimates of voter turnout based on areas the U.S. has allowed voting to take place, or adjusted to reflect those areas where the population can't vote?

[Frankenstein Monster]

Are these guesses and runing estimates of voter turnout based on areas the U.S. has allowed voting to take place, or adjusted to reflect those areas where the population can't vote?
We won't know the answer for awhile but the best source I have found so far on this question is this (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-01/30/content_2528012.htm).

[elucidator]

As noted in parallel thread: watching CNN, they have just expressed first skepticism as to the numbers, suggesting inflation on the part of the CPA.

And that's the problem: none of us have a non-partisan, objectively reliable source of information.

[XT]

By any chance, did they go into the basis of their skepticism on CNN? The hotel I'm at doesn't seem to have CNN or even Fox on its list of channels.

-XT

[elucidator]

A fleeting reference to the Arabic press, and something about the CPA backing down from previous statements. You know what I know: diddly squat.

[XT]

Here's what they say on their web site (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.main/index.html).

However, U.S. commanders expecting a greater level of violence said they were pleasantly surprised that their massive security operation had paid off, CNN's Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour reported from the Iraqi capital.

The Independent Election Commission of Iraq clarified an earlier estimate of a 72 percent turnout in Sunday's election, saying that the "figures are only very rough, word-of-mouth estimates gathered informally from the field."

"It will take some time for the IECI to issue accurate figures on turnout," the statement said. "What is certainly the case is that turnout has exceeded expectations throughout the country."

More than 14.2 million Iraqis were registered for the vote. Polls have since closed, although voters who were in line at the time of poll closings are being allowed to cast their ballots.

U.N. election organizer Carlos Valezuela told CNN that while he was "happy with the turnout," it was too early to report numbers.

"I would rather until we have much better reporting to be able to come up with figures," he said.

CNN correspondents earlier reported that turnout was sporadic across the nation after 30,000 polling booths opened at 7 a.m. on Sunday (0400 GMT) under the watchful eye of Iraqi security forces and U.S. troops. Voting ended at 5 p.m. (1400 GMT).

In former president Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, polling stations were virtually empty. But in other parts of the country booths were packed with people casting their ballots, many of them for the first time in their lifetime.

So, its still unclear at this point. Probably because in some places (especially Sunni strongholds like Tikrit) there was a low vote count, while in others it was heavy. It would be difficult to estimate with that situation. Just have to wait to count how many votes were cast.

I thought this was interesting:

Iraqis vote amid violence
Polls close on country's first free vote in a half-century
Sunday, January 30, 2005 Posted: 11:04 AM EST (1604 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Polls have closed in Iraq's first free election in a half century, with officials reporting a higher than expected turnout of registered voters amid attacks and threats of violence.

Insurgents carried out more than a dozen attacks across the country on Sunday, killing at least 25 people and wounding 71 others.

At least eight suicide bombings took place during the voting. There are reports of a ninth, but CNN has not confirmed those reports.

There were eight other types of attacks as well, including one in which insurgents identified Iraqi civilians as having voted -- based on the ink on their fingers -- and threw grenades at them, killing them.

Admirable 'freedom fighters' here...tossing grenades at civilians based on the ink on their fingers, or using suicide bombers attacking those waiting in line. Great guys here! I know, I know...they are fighting for their freedom and all, bravely killing civilians who were obviously evil because they wanted to vote. Doesn't appear that there was as much violence as originally feared, though.

-XT

[Frankenstein Monster]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1401985,00.html

The Iraqi election commission estimated that 8 million Iraqis had taken part in the vote, a turnout of 60%. Officials had earlier claimed a turnout of 72% but the commission later backtracked and said it had only been an estimate.

[XT]

God, what a mess. I didn't see all that other crap in there. I don't suppose a mod could remove all the stuff from "I thought this was interesting:" to the quoted section? I'd appreciate it.

-XT

[Ghost of Marlowe]

It's worth reminding that the election is not about choosing a Grand Poo-Bah Leader of Iraq, but of simply electing a 200+-member council who will serve as an interim government while a Constitution is drafted and all that other long, tedious, boring stuff gets hammered out.


I think this says a lot about your political reflexes, rjung. Fie on all that boring Constitution stuff--just get straight to choosing a Maximum Leader for Life!

Men have shed blood for the right to that "long, tedious, boring stuff" that goes along with democracy and the rule of law. In THIS country, if nowhere else. You strike me as ungrateful.

[Squink]

What is this?
A ctrl-V thread? :D

[Ryan_Liam]

Some are so anxious for Iraq to fail they even suggest that Islam is somehow incompatible with democracy. Arabs can't do the election thing we so take in our stride that less than half of British voters could be arsed to make a mark on a ballot paper at our most recent elections last spring. At best, this is hugely patronising; at worst, it is profoundly racist.

You can grasp why opponents of the war so loathe any prospect that Messrs Blair and Bush might be able to claim vindication from these elections. But to want democracy in Iraq to be a disaster simply to give yourself another reason to say: 'I told you so' is to put your self-righteousness before a better chance for more than 25 million people.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1401751,00.html

Regardless of how any of us feel, I think we should take heed of this.

[Avenger]

You can grasp why opponents of the war so loathe any prospect that Messrs Blair and Bush might be able to claim vindication from these elections. But to want democracy in Iraq to be a disaster simply to give yourself another reason to say: 'I told you so' is to put your self-righteousness before a better chance for more than 25 million people.

Who needs to bother wanting democracy in Iraq to fail to be able to say 'I told you say' to Bliar and Bush? There's already plenty of reasons to do that.

Besides, I'm confident that when a democratic, self-assured and united Iraq finally does emerge from the maelstrom that the bungling invasion and occupation has plunged the country into, they will democratically tell Bush and the Neo-cons where they can stick their vision of the country's future :D

[elucidator]

So, then, we can take it that you hate fluffy kittens and favor thrusting cute puppies into blenders? As well as hating Freedom and Liberty?

[Ryan_Liam]

Besides, I'm confident that when a democratic, self-assured and united Iraq finally does emerge from the maelstrom that the bungling invasion and occupation has plunged the country into, they will democratically tell Bush and the Neo-cons where they can stick their vision of the country's future

Yep, but guess what? Those people you're against brought that very government, and all the democratic institutions into place. Kinda ironic, isn't it? :)

No good deed goes unpunished. :)

[Ryan_Liam]

So, then, we can take it that you hate fluffy kittens and favor thrusting cute puppies into blenders? As well as hating Freedom and Liberty?

Are those peskee eye-rabs not ready for deemockracy?

[Avenger]

Yep, but guess what? Those people you're against brought that very government, and all the democratic institutions into place. Kinda ironic, isn't it?

Not really ironic no. Why would it be?

[Ryan_Liam]

Not really ironic no. Why would it be?

Erm, because you oppose president Bush for what he's done in Iraq, yet is creating the conditions in which Arab people can actually voice their opinions within a government.

[Avenger]

Erm, because you oppose president Bush for what he's done in Iraq, yet is creating the conditions in which Arab people can actually voice their opinions within a government.

Oh that kind of irony. Like if your against little old ladies being mugged on the street, but for small children not dying of a hunger, and someone robs a little old lady to feed his starving children. That kind of irony.

[Ryan_Liam]

Oh that kind of irony. Like if your against little old ladies being mugged on the street, but for small children not dying of a hunger, and someone robs a little old lady to feed his starving children. That kind of irony.

I guess President Bush wants all that oil owned by the Iraqis to himself and the Zionists. :)

[Squink]

Radio Free Europe dopes on what the election commision said shortly before poll closing: Voter Turnout Strong In Nearly All Iraqi Provinces (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2005/01/iraq-050130-rferl04.htm) Turnout nationwide was estimated to be at about 72 percent of registered voters. Sixty-five percent of registered expatriate voters have cast their ballots.
The figures are as follows in the following provinces.
Al-Najaf: 80 percent
Al-Qadisiyah: 50 percent
...

[elucidator]

There's some very strange shit going on here, and I don't pretend to understand. I very well might understand, if I had any objective information that I could trust, but when everybody has an agenda.....

First off, does it strike anyone else that it seems as though the "anti-election" insurgency kind of backed off? Like they didn't put out a full court press? In a situation like this, anything we don't understand is a threat. Perhaps they decided that the election wasn't where they wanted to bet their chips. Or, perhaps more likely, one faction of the insurgency, that associated with muslim fanaticism, did proceed with thier full strength, but that strength is relatively small. Which would imply a more powerful insurgency that is not opposed to democracy as such on religious/cultural grounds, like Al Zarqawi is. Would this mean a move to outflank Al Zarqawis faction from a more secular faction? Could this be why the Iraqis are suddenly so confident that they will get Al Zarqawi very soon?

And is that good news, bad news, or God only knows?

[Squink]

And is that good news, bad news, or God only knows?Can't tell yet. I've been seeing reports that turnouts in Sunni areas are really light. No one's got the foggiest yet as to who or what won and by how much; whether there's a mandate of sorts, or merely corpse twitching. I doubt we'll ever get non-spun numbers, but the weakness or strength of the leading parties, and the degree to which the Sunnis are marginalized over the next couple months will determine the badness or goodness of today.

[Avenger]

First off, does it strike anyone else that it seems as though the "anti-election" insurgency kind of backed off? Like they didn't put out a full court press? In a situation like this, anything we don't understand is a threat. Perhaps they decided that the election wasn't where they wanted to bet their chips. Or, perhaps more likely, one faction of the insurgency, that associated with muslim fanaticism, did proceed with thier full strength, but that strength is relatively small.

Possible, although by most standards the number of attacks today does seem quite large, although not as large as some of the predictions.

Could just be the same reasons as why there are never terror attacks on the high-profile occasions when everyone is expecting a terror attack (Olympics, Presidential Inaugaration, etc). Why go to the bother of launching an attack today when there are more troops on the streets, curfews, blockades, etc, when you can do it tomorrow?

[pantom]

My only comment is, if the Administration - ours, that is - is smart, it will use this to divide and conquer, and maybe even figure a way to get Iran, in whose interests a Shiite election victory and takeover of the government is, to help us out. I mean shit, we've got Chalabi there to help us out with this task.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence yet that the Administration knows its ass from a hole in the wall, as evidenced by their galloping campaign to alienate Iran, which is as stupid as alienating and then deposing, instead of using, a secular Saddam against Osama. So, odds are this falls apart in, oh, a half year or so.

[tomndebb]

we've got Chalabi there to help us out with this task. And Arkansas had Orval Faubus to help implement desegregation a generation ago and New York City had John Gotti to help reduce criminal activity and...

[Ghost of Marlowe]

First off, does it strike anyone else that it seems as though the "anti-election" insurgency kind of backed off? Like they didn't put out a full court press? In a situation like this, anything we don't understand is a threat.

Admirable logic, I believe first employed by Lieutenant General J.L. DeWitt: "The very fact that no sabotage has taken place to date is a disturbing and confirming indication that such action will be taken."

This in support of interning Japanese Americans during WWII. Gosh durn it, anything we don't understand is a threat!

[Sam Stone]

There's some very strange shit going on here, and I don't pretend to understand. I very well might understand, if I had any objective information that I could trust, but when everybody has an agenda.....

First off, does it strike anyone else that it seems as though the "anti-election" insurgency kind of backed off? Like they didn't put out a full court press? In a situation like this, anything we don't understand is a threat. Perhaps they decided that the election wasn't where they wanted to bet their chips. Or, perhaps more likely, one faction of the insurgency, that associated with muslim fanaticism, did proceed with thier full strength, but that strength is relatively small. Which would imply a more powerful insurgency that is not opposed to democracy as such on religious/cultural grounds, like Al Zarqawi is. Would this mean a move to outflank Al Zarqawis faction from a more secular faction? Could this be why the Iraqis are suddenly so confident that they will get Al Zarqawi very soon?

And is that good news, bad news, or God only knows?

Of course, it's entirely possible that the lack of widespread violence means that, A) The insurgency has been weakened dramatically, rather than growing like a weed as the lefties have been claiming, and B) that the high turnout means that the insurgents don't actually have the support of the population as many of you have been claiming. In fact, it seems to me that the Iraqi people have been literally giving the insurgency the finger all day.

Of course, believing this means accepting that perhaps things might turn out well in Iraq, and therefore the Bush Administration might actually wriggle off the hook for this war, so I understand the need to believe in shadowy mysteries rather than accept the evidence staring you in the face.

[pantom]

tomndebb: point, please?

[tomndebb]

Chalabi cannot help us.

First, Chalabi's sole goal has always appeared to those outside the neo-con ring of self-deception to be to accrue power for Chalabi so that Chalabi can wield power. There is no evidence that he has shown any interest in freedom or democracy for the nation of Iraq. (He has succeeded in gathering a small army of personal supporters and he has succeeded in passing (mis)information back and forth between the Iranians and the U.S. administration without the knowledge of the U.S. people with whom he "worked," but he has never demonstrated a willingness to actually work for Iraqi freedom.)

Second, he is pretty much universally despised throughout the MENA region as a self-promoting thief and liar. People outside Iraq see him as the indicted embezzler and fugitive from justice that he has demonstrated himself to be. People inside Iraq see him as an opportunistic carpetbagger who had hoped to ride Uncle Sam's coattails to power in Iraq.

His credibility was further destroyed among the "coalition of the willing" when his little espionage capers with Iran were revealed last summer.

The U.S. has relied far too heavily on expatriots in our effort to establish a new Iraq. (Allawi is also known inside Iraq as a man who gains power through bribery and coercion, but after Chalabi was disgraced last summer, the U.S. was forced to accept Allawi's self-paid promotion unless we wished to admit that we were going to select the puppets regardless of the Iraqi votes).

[elucidator]

Of course, it's entirely possible that the lack of widespread violence means that, A) The insurgency has been weakened dramatically, rather than growing like a weed as the lefties have been claiming, and B) that the high turnout means that the insurgents don't actually have the support of the population as many of you have been claiming. In fact, it seems to me that the Iraqi people have been literally giving the insurgency the finger all day....

Of course, Sam, if you have sources of information beyond our ken, you are certainly welcome to bring them. But since your post simply drips with accusation, I am compelled to answer. Right after I note that you offer nothing in the way of evidence but your faith in the Shining One, which you have already expressed.

A) The insurgency is weakened dramaticly. Was that today? Yesterday? On what basis do you make this assertion? Certainly that attacks on our people have not "weakened dramaticly". And what, pray, is this "as the lefties have been claiming" crapola? Are you suggesting the insurgency is all a manifestation of the liberal media and its fevered imagination? To put it another way, who do you think you're kidding, here?

b) depends on a central factor not in evidence: that there is an "insurgency", that is has a single character, and a unified front. It is a classic fact of insurgency and guerilla war: without the support of the people, you're toast. Because the people will rat you out. If they don't rat you out because they don't like you, they'll do it for a couple of bucks. Here's my guess: if the general population of Iraq were eagerly handing over insurgents, right and left, there wouldn't be very many. So, then, they aren't. Further, if they were ratting them out right and left the admin. would be trumpeting this from the rooftops? Heard any such?

...Of course, believing this means accepting that perhaps things might turn out well in Iraq, and therefore the Bush Administration might actually wriggle off the hook for this war, so I understand the need to believe in shadowy mysteries rather than accept the evidence staring you in the face.

Well, naturally, Sam, I resent your implication, but you knew that before you said it. Yes, things might turn out well in Iraq, the unlikely does occur. But it will not be due to any intelligent planning on the part of the administration you are so eager to defend to the point of mythologizing.

But this can all be settled. Simply bring forth your vast store of verifiable fact.

[Sam Stone]

What verifiable fact? You offered an opinion that the lack of violence was a real mystery you couldn't understand. I merely offered the suggestion that perhaps it was only a 'mystery' because you were unwilling to accept that perhaps this was the best the insurgents could do, because that would invalidate your belief that the insurgency was widespread, had the broad support of the people, and was getting stronger. Hence your cognitive dissonance in trying to parse the events of the day.

[Ale]

...In fact, it seems to me that the Iraqi people have been literally giving the insurgency the finger all day.

Not necessarily, a large proportion of the Iraqi people want the US out of there ASAP, and support the insurgency on that objective; elections and a representative goverment that could materialize the wishes of the people would be another way to reach that objective, so I don´t think voting and insurgency support are necesarilly mutually exclusive for the average Iraqi.

[Ale]

I forgot...

The same can be proposed for the relatively low rate of attacks during the election, insurgents that want to finish US occupation woulnd´t be operating in their best interests sabotaging an election where the majority of the electorate is in agreement with their objective. On the other hand the attacks that did occur are most probably the action of honest to goodness terrorist that are thriving in the chaos of the country and don´t want their party to be spoiled.

[elucidator]

....your belief that the insurgency was widespread, had the broad support of the people, and was getting stronger. Hence your cognitive dissonance in trying to parse the events of the day.

Oh, I see now! Me and the liberalmedia, we were making this shit up all along! But you knew better, didn't you, Sam. That's why it will be no problem at all for you to cite a few of the many, many times you said exactly that: that there really isn't an "insurgency".

But, you know, we sure fooled a lot of folks with our baseless propaganda, seems to me I recall a number of admin types worrying over the effect the (non-existent) insurgency would have on the elections..... But not you, right, Sam? You knew better, and said so dozens of times, right?

[BrainGlutton]

Say, is there any word yet on the election results? How long will it take to count the ballots? Have there been any exit polls? What will the new parliament look like?

[Ryan_Liam]

Say, is there any word yet on the election results? How long will it take to count the ballots? Have there been any exit polls? What will the new parliament look like?

It will take a week to count the ballots, the election results predict a win for the Shia Alliance, but only by a small margin, followed closely by the Iraq list headed by Allawi.

[Sam Stone]

Oh, I see now! Me and the liberalmedia, we were making this shit up all along! But you knew better, didn't you, Sam. That's why it will be no problem at all for you to cite a few of the many, many times you said exactly that: that there really isn't an "insurgency".


Oh, come on. I never said that. What I have said repeatedly, in threads in which you took part, is that it seemed to me that the insurgency was made up of ex-Saddam dead-enders, al-Qaida, and foreign fighters, along with some percentage of Sunnis who figure they're about to lose power. I've repeatedly said that I saw no evidence of widespread support for them by the population, and the evidence we've had when they 'controlled' cities is that they largely controlled through brutality and fear and the people were happy to be rid of them once the U.S. military routed them out. I said that the insurgency would not win precisely because it was not a popular, grassroots movement, but the actions of a bunch of thugs trying to grab power from the rest.

You think that viewpoint might be accurate, given the events of the day?

[Malodorous]

It´s probably a mistake to refer to the ¨Iraqi People¨ supporting one thing or another. I´ve heard the Sunni turnout was something like 10-20%, and most of the violence has occured in Sunni areas, so it´s quite possible that the insurgency has the support of the Sunni population but not that of the Kurds or Shia.

I think that the insurgency has done a fair amount of damage to the election process, both by keeping down Sunni turnout and by forcing a secretive and truncated election where the political parties were kept from revealing their candidates or campaigning heavily to display thier platforms due to the security situation. It remains to be seen how much damage this will do to the preceived legitimacy of the resulting gov´t

[pantom]

Well, Chalabi wasn't my main point; my main point was allying with Iran to divide both Iraq and the larger Arab world.
I mean, I agree with and am well aware of what a POS Chalabi is. It's also true that we're in an impossible situation and there aren't any cost-free ways of getting out. Given that, dividing and conquering is, it seems to me, the way to go. If we don't, we could be faced with a three-way civil war - chaos. Therefore, you isolate the Sunnis. In that endeavor, given that this will piss off the larger Arab world, we need a powerful ally. Iran fits the bill. If we get off our obsession with Israel's interests, we would be able to see that clearly. If Israel had leaders who could see their own self-interest clearly, they'd see it too, since an Arab world obsessed with a Shia Iraq allied with Iran would be no threat to them.
Neither Israel nor the US is in any danger of seeing their interests clearly under the current intellectually challenged leadership each rejoices under, of course, so like I said: by the second half of the year, we should see the whole thing fall to pieces. Chalabi isn't central to this argument at all, so just ignore that piece. The rest is the way I figure we need to go, but won't, though.

[pantom]

My last post was addressed to tomndebb, of course.
If you want to see why the US won't follow its own best interests, simply read any post by Sam Stone. That level of logic and insight is what they operate under.

[Ryan_Liam]

Dividing and conquering it wouldn't solve any problems, only enflame them further.

[pantom]

Yes, but it would allow the US to get out. I live in the US, not in Iraq, and I want a leadership that realizes they run things for our interests, not theirs. Sorry.

[Sam Stone]

If you want to see why the US won't follow its own best interests, simply read any post by Sam Stone. That level of logic and insight is what they operate under.


At least I know enough to post personal insults in the right forum.

[pantom]

That was directed strictly at your posts. If I wanted to insult you directly, there are plenty of ways to do it that aren't nearly as subtle.

[Sam Stone]

I see. So claiming that 'any' of my posts are an example of poor thinking isn't a personal attack, because you are aiming it at my 'posts'.

It's certainly a novel approach for getting a cheap shot in. You get half points for that.

[Magiver]

There's some very strange shit going on here, and I don't pretend to understand. I very well might understand, if I had any objective information that I could trust, but when everybody has an agenda.....

First off, does it strike anyone else that it seems as though the "anti-election" insurgency kind of backed off? Like they didn't put out a full court press? In a situation like this, anything we don't understand is a threat. Perhaps they decided that the election wasn't where they wanted to bet their chips. Or, perhaps more likely, one faction of the insurgency, that associated with muslim fanaticism, did proceed with thier full strength, but that strength is relatively small. Which would imply a more powerful insurgency that is not opposed to democracy as such on religious/cultural grounds, like Al Zarqawi is. Would this mean a move to outflank Al Zarqawis faction from a more secular faction? Could this be why the Iraqis are suddenly so confident that they will get Al Zarqawi very soon?

And is that good news, bad news, or God only knows?
What makes you think they backed off? There where something like 8 (?) suicide terrorists who tried to stop it. The terrorist acts were there, but the payoff was much lower. Without the use of cars to transport explosives it required direct confrontation to interfere with the election. IMO, terrorism exists because direct confrontation is a losing proposition. It follows that the election presented itself as a low rate-of-return for the terrorists.

This is the 1st of 2 important elections. It puts an interim government in place and establishes a constitution. The 2nd election is in December. It gives the Iraqi's a chance to reaffirm their political choices in a short time span. In the time between elections they will probably start getting glimpses of Saddam's crimes. Since he liked to videotape his atrocities it will be a stark reminder of what the elections represent. I believe this will further unify them and strengthen their resolve to expose the terrorist factions. If Zarcowardly is brought to justice soon it will accelerate the desire of Iraqi's to move forward. The more events that demonstrated unity the faster it will occur. Time will tell.

[pantom]

There's ways of dealing with it. You've been here long enough to know that. Feel free.

[Fear Itself]

Of course, it's entirely possible that the lack of widespread violence means that, A) The insurgency has been weakened dramatically, rather than growing like a weed as the lefties have been claimingCan we assume you believe that, due to the weakened insurgency, the level of violence will continue to decline from here on out? Want to put you money where your mouth is?

[Ryan_Liam]

Yes, but it would allow the US to get out. I live in the US, not in Iraq, and I want a leadership that realizes they run things for our interests, not theirs. Sorry.

How very selfish of you. Yes, but to many, including the US, we created a mess in Iraq, and its our obligation to fix this mess, for the benefit of Iraqis, not any selfish gain. So yes, we'll remain there thank you.

[Sam Stone]

Anyone who states categoricially that the violence will either decrease or increase after this point is a moron. And that has nothing to do with what I believe the insurgency to be. Hell, the people I mentioned could easily be numbered in the thousands or tens of thousands. And they may have the backing of states like Syria. Perhaps they will come out in some all-out attacck in the next while. Or perhaps the U.S. has killed so many of them, and today's elections have dispirited them and what will be left will be more of the kind of resistence we see from Palestinian terrorists - the occasional bombing of a government building, a suicide bomber in a police station, that sort of thing. I fully expect there will be more violence at at least that level.

This is a far cry than the claims of some, that the insurgency is a popular resistance movement operating with the tacit approval and support of the people, growing in strength over time and gaining in number.

And another meme that's about to die - the notion that the Iraqis might vote in an Islamic, anti-American government. CNN is reporting that the majority of people they exit polled said that they wanted a secular government (even the highly religious shia women interviewed), and CNN said that the most popular party among the people they interviewed was that of Allawi, that evil U.S. puppet.

[pantom]

We didn't go in there to help the Iraqis. That's just the last rationalization the US Admin could pull out of its collective ass for the mess they made.
The mess will go away when someone gains a monopoly on power. That won't happen until the opposition is overwhelmed. To oversimplify, the Shias, under the scenario that is now unfolding, have the upper hand. To succeed, they need to overwhelm the Sunnis. Nothing else will do.
The elections are like a brilliant move made by an amateur chess player against Bobby Fisher. But what counts in chess is not the present move, unless it's a checkmate of course, but the moves you have in mind. If those are inferior to what your opponent has in mind, you'll lose anyway.
Like an awful player of chess or poker, the US has already shown its hand, telegraphed its moves: it intends to move on Iran next. Iran will do what it needs to to counter the threat, because they may be many things, but they're not stupid. The Shias of Iraq will find themselves isolated and alone fighting the Sunnis and all of their Arab allies, or they will ally with Iran against us. It will be in their interests to do the latter, unless we can somehow keep the Iraqi Sunnis isolated at the same time as we go after Iran. Possible, but not likely. Also, it will be costly to follow the road of isolating the Sunnis while going after Iran, far more costly than allying with the Shias and Iran, and then pulling out once the Shias have gained that monopoly on power and subjugated the Sunnis.
This will leave a stable Iraq. It won't be our protectorate, but it will sell us its oil, which is the only thing that should matter to us.

[Ryan_Liam]

To oversimplify, the Shias, under the scenario that is now unfolding, have the upper hand. To succeed, they need to overwhelm the Sunnis. Nothing else will do.

Number one Shias aren't united in their outlook, number two, Shias need the other ethnic groups support to effectively govern Iraq.

Like an awful player of chess or poker, the US has already shown its hand, telegraphed its moves: it intends to move on Iran next. Iran will do what it needs to to counter the threat, because they may be many things, but they're not stupid.

And I'm sure by that analysis, we should pretty much leave right now :rolleyes: yeah, and I guess the US isn't stoopid either.

The Shias of Iraq will find themselves isolated and alone fighting the Sunnis and all of their Arab allies, or they will ally with Iran against us. It will be in their interests to do the latter, unless we can somehow keep the Iraqi Sunnis isolated at the same time as we go after Iran. Possible, but not likely. Also, it will be costly to follow the road of isolating the Sunnis while going after Iran, far more costly than allying with the Shias and Iran, and then pulling out once the Shias have gained that monopoly on power and subjugated the Sunnis.

Rubbish. Kurds anyone? :rolleyes:

[pantom]

1) Yes, by that analysis we should leave right now. Yesterday would be preferable.
2) Re the Kurds: I said I was oversimplifying. Yes the Shias do need other ethnic groups, so to reply to two points at the same time:
Throw in the Kurds. How does this change things? The necessary condition is a monopoly on power. This can be acheived by letting the Kurds have autonomy within a Federal system, hemming in the Sunni Arabs from the north, while the Shias hem them in from the south. The idea is to contain and gradually eradicate the Sunni rebellion, while leaving Iraq strong enough to deal with recalcitrant neighbors like Syria. It won't be strong enough to deal with Iran by itself, so the only option there is to co-opt Iran. Confronting it only gets you into hotter water.
The danger here is that the Administration is already rattling its sabres at Iran, before it has fully dealt with Iraq. What this means, it would appear, is that they intend to go after Iran as soon as they stabilize Iraq. The problem with this is that to achieve the latter, they need Iran, because the Shias may be a majority in Iraq, but they are a decided minority in the Arab world in total, and a despised minority at that. While nation-states may not go after the new Shia regime in Iraq, terrorists will. We already see that. They're going to need allies to survive. Unless we intend to stay forever, those allies need to be local.

[Rashak Mani]

And another meme that's about to die - the notion that the Iraqis might vote in an Islamic, anti-American government. CNN is reporting that the majority of people they exit polled said that they wanted a secular government (even the highly religious shia women interviewed), and CNN said that the most popular party among the people they interviewed was that of Allawi, that evil U.S. puppet.
Polls for a long time have indicated that Iraqis wanted a secular govt. your not bringing anything new... and as for Allawi... would you say other candidates got as much air-time and exposure to have a chance of defeating Allawi ? In both Afghanistan and Iraq the appointed leader eventually won... its a pattern... and I think its not due to the US strictly speaking... but its about chaotic elections where only the guy in power gets "air time"

[HMS Irruncible]

Iraqi voters risk assassination to cast their ballots, while US voters risk nothing more than missing their favorite TV show. Yet the Iraqi voter turnout outpaced the US voter turnout even at its peak.

In particular, I am amazed at the 9% Sunni turnout. Most likely these people live in areas controlled by the insurgents who threatened voters with assassination. Some of these voters know they may be dead by tomorrow for exercising their democratic rights, but still they came out and voted.

How many of us would have the passion to vote if we knew voters were targeted for assassination? Not many, I'll bet.

[Ryan_Liam]

1) Yes, by that analysis we should leave right now. Yesterday would be preferable.
2) Re the Kurds: I said I was oversimplifying. Yes the Shias do need other ethnic groups, so to reply to two points at the same time:
Throw in the Kurds. How does this change things? The necessary condition is a monopoly on power. This can be acheived by letting the Kurds have autonomy within a Federal system, hemming in the Sunni Arabs from the north, while the Shias hem them in from the south. The idea is to contain and gradually eradicate the Sunni rebellion, while leaving Iraq strong enough to deal with recalcitrant neighbors like Syria. It won't be strong enough to deal with Iran by itself, so the only option there is to co-opt Iran. Confronting it only gets you into hotter water.
The danger here is that the Administration is already rattling its sabres at Iran, before it has fully dealt with Iraq. What this means, it would appear, is that they intend to go after Iran as soon as they stabilize Iraq. The problem with this is that to achieve the latter, they need Iran, because the Shias may be a majority in Iraq, but they are a decided minority in the Arab world in total, and a despised minority at that. While nation-states may not go after the new Shia regime in Iraq, terrorists will. We already see that. They're going to need allies to survive. Unless we intend to stay forever, those allies need to be local.

Perhaps I'm not getting through to you. For the Shias, you know lead by Sistani, to effectively govern the country, they need support of the Sunnis, and the Kurds.

Yeah sure they'll go after the new Shia government, even though they'd have to disregard there own Shia populations.

terrorists will

Terrorists go after Israelis, does that make it successful? No.

They're going to need allies to survive

Turkey? Us? We have vested interests.

[Ryan_Liam]

Polls for a long time have indicated that Iraqis wanted a secular govt. your not bringing anything new... and as for Allawi... would you say other candidates got as much air-time and exposure to have a chance of defeating Allawi ? In both Afghanistan and Iraq the appointed leader eventually won... its a pattern... and I think its not due to the US strictly speaking... but its about chaotic elections where only the guy in power gets "air time"

Air time is nothing compared to grassroots political action. Didn't you learn anything from the US election?

Btw, most Iraqis have tv's, but no electricity for some parts of the day, combine that with people have lives to lead, the impact is minimal.

[pantom]

Some Sunnis will need to be used. But the operative condition in Iraq, unavoidably, is going to be Shia dominance. Most Sunnis aren't going to like that, and a significant minority, large enough to cause major problems if they aren't dealt with, as we already see (you do read and watch the news?) are going to have to be forcibly put down; once traffic starts up again, so will the car bombs.
That's the ugly reality.
Turkey is simply not a player, except as an irritant in the Kurdish situation up north, where they are desperately trying to limit Kurdish autonomy. IMO, this is a bad thing, not a good thing, except to the extent that they keep the Kurds from forming their own state, which would be a definite bad thing. We do need Turkey on our side, of course, as they are a NATO member state and Iraqi oil is piped through Turkish territory. But their usefulness in stabilizing Iraq is limited.
No, Iraq and Iran share a long border, and the majority of Iraqis share a common religion with the majority of Iranians. On top of that, many Iraqi shias, Sistani included, were born in Iran. They're still Arab rather than Persian, and still self-identify, far as I can tell from here, as Iraqis, but it does go to show the closeness of the two sides of the Shia family. Iran could be very valuable as an ally; as an enemy, they will be very very bothersome, to put it mildly. If nothing else, the US should realize this much. Apparently, from all the stupid statements coming out of Washington about them, and their refusal to join Europe in negotiating with them about their nuclear program, it doesn't. Instead, they're deliberately alienating the most powerful country in the region, the one with ties to the very people we are helping with this election.
It makes no sense. But given this Admin's record, that should come as no surprise.

[Declan]

First off, does it strike anyone else that it seems as though the "anti-election" insurgency kind of backed off? Like they didn't put out a full court press?

If they are waging a terrorist war ,then enough of the operations are going to be pychological in nature, ie just the threat of carbombs , grenade attacks , mortars and such, should provide a force multiplier to the AL Q and the home grown insurgents.

Secondly , its also possible that they did not have everything they needed , prepositioned , so a percentage of the terrorists were denied the use of the roads and all they had was what was on hand.

Third is that enough of the insurgency is controlled by tehran, and they ordered the stand down , while leaving the other factions unco-ordinated in a pre planned election offensive. Which is a nice thought , Zarqawis looking like a chump , to his minions.

In a situation like this, anything we don't understand is a threat. Perhaps they decided that the election wasn't where they wanted to bet their chips.

Me thinks , the opposite actually. If they did not go with an election offensive, then they would have conceded the political and moral axis of their cause to the new govt , and gives it momentum. So when they do get their founding fathers together and hammer out a constitution of some sort , any threats that are made to disrupt elections are going to be concidered , but the cherry is popped. Enough Iraqis made the trip to cast a ballot, this one is gonna reverb everywhere in the Middle east.



Could this be why the Iraqis are suddenly so confident that they will get Al Zarqawi very soon?

Some people already think that the man is behind a secure set of bars already

IDAO (http://www.idao.org/2005/01/stop-press-abu-musab-al-zarqawi.xml)

But that report came out several weeks ago, with no full court press reporting by fox , cnn, everyone else. Your milage will vary on what you think of the reliability of that site.

And is that good news, bad news, or God only knows?

Good news if true , thats one animal that should be behind bars for a very long time.

Declan

[Fear Itself]

CNN is reporting that the majority of people they exit polled said that they wanted a secular government (even the highly religious shia women interviewed), and CNN said that the most popular party among the people they interviewed was that of Allawi, that evil U.S. puppet.You know Sam, it is curious that you have so much faith in exit polls, when only a few months ago you had this to say about them (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5445865&highlight=exit#post5445865):In the last election, exit polls were WILDLY off, and in the same direction. In fact, the reason the networks didn't use exit polling this year was because it was shown to be so inaccurate in 2000.Why are exit polls now the center of your argument? Are the conditions in Iraq so much more favorable than they were in America in November that we are now to take your word that they are reliable?

[Squink]

The top UN adviser to the Iraqi election commission, Carlos Valenzuela, said the Iraqi turnout estimate had been based on nothing more than anecdotal information, or "impressionistic approximations."Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1107055729768) In Samarra, streets were largely deserted and fewer than 1,400 ballots were cast by a population of 200,000. "Nobody came. People were too afraid," said Madafar Zeki, in charge of a polling center in the mostly Sunni city.Reuters (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20050131/ts_nm/iraq_dc)
No more than 400 people voted in Saddam's hometown of Tikrit, and in the heavily Sunni northern Baghdad neighborhood of Azamiyah, where Saddam made his last known public appearance in early April 2003, the four polling places never even opened.AP (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050131/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_the_vote)
The poll booths in the main cities of the so-called Sunni Triangle north and west of Baghdad, were largely deserted particularly in Fallijah, Ramadi and Beiji. While in Baghdad's mainly Sunni area of Azamiya according to the residents of the area the four polling centers did not open at all.al Jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=6811)

[Rashak Mani]

Air time is nothing compared to grassroots political action. Didn't you learn anything from the US election?

Btw, most Iraqis have tv's, but no electricity for some parts of the day, combine that with people have lives to lead, the impact is minimal.
When I said "airtime" I meant exposure to the public... be it TV or "campaigning".

Grassroots political action is fine for local political positions... but for other campaigns it would have been hard with the insurgency and US military occupation. I don't think there was much "grassrooting" or not enough. So the fact that this guarantees Allawi's election is sad in a way... even if he seems to be the least worst for the job. Many candidates were anonyomous too... this isn't a good start for democracy no matter how we spin it. Though we might say that its the best in the current conditions... (but conditions that are the responsibility of the US.)