Civics lesson

So tomorrow is the day. The big day! The day democracy comes to Iraq!

In reading the comments on several blogs lately, I've noticed that the issue of "you liberals" not talking a lot about the Iraqi elections has come up a number of times. And in my case, it actually is true: I haven't talked about them much. But there's still time, so here I go.

I hope they come off smoothly. (They won't.)

I hope they come off peacefully. (They won't.)

I hope they come off honestly. (They won't.)

I hope the results truly reflect the desires of the Iraqi people. (They won't.)

I hope they are a truly legitimate exercise of democracy. (They can't be.)

The truth is, whatever we may hope, there is simply no way this can be a legitimate election. Not when "Baghdad feels like a city preparing for war." Not when even the interim president, Ghazi Yawer, admits that many people will not vote because of the threat of violence. Not when, according to a poll by Zogby International, 76% of Sunnis, in line with a call for a boycott, said they "definitely would not vote" and only 9% said they would.

Not when

[t]omorrow's supposedly free and fair elections have been undermined by a wealth of "soft money", an absence of inspectors and no limits to how much candidates can spend.

As a result, parties with links to exile groups have a huge advantage over their rivals,

taking advantage of large sums flowing in from Iran and Saudi Arabia, reports The Independent (UK).

Not when the total lack of international monitors, who will be in Amman, Jordan, not Iraq, means

that it will be impossible to conclude anything about the extent to which corruption, voter intimidation or outright fraud will mar the results. The exercise will regrettably be a farce,

as Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH, 10) wrote to Secretary of State Cantbe Right. (The entire letter, in .pdf format, can be seen here.)

Indeed, some examples of fraud have already been found, say articles from the Institute for War & Peace Reporting, including political slates using posters featuring images of leading clerics without their permission and voter education materials in the southern city of Karbala being tampered with to add a blurb implying that the Shia clerical leadership endorsed the major Shia-led coalition.

Not when there have been restrictions on the media, on travel, and on public assemblies and when the security situation is so bad candidates fear to have their names known.

And not when the country is still occupied by roughly 150,000 foreign, mostly US, troops. Not under the shadow of American guns. No election can be thought truly free, truly legitimate, under those conditions.

But they will happen anyway. They must. Even if Allawi and the US genuinely wanted to delay them, they wouldn't, they couldn't. As I said back on December 19, there was simply too much political capital invested in the date to change it. So the show will go on, everyone will spin their spin, the low turnout will be credited to a boycott or blamed on "terrorist violence," those who do vote will be lauded as "the brave face of the new Iraq," there will be discussions about bringing more Sunnis into the government (it's already happening), a government which will be denounced as a "puppet" filled with "collaborators" - and no one but no one will think for an instant this will change anything.

In fact,

[i]nstead of stabilizing the country, national elections Jan. 30 are likely to be followed by more violence and could provoke a civil war between majority Shiite Muslims and minority Sunni Muslims, the CIA and other intelligence agencies predict, according to senior officials who have seen the classified reports[, the Miami Herald reported January 18.] ...

All major U.S. intelligence agencies share a pessimistic prognosis for Iraq's future, according to a senior administration official. The assessment of the State Department's intelligence bureau is so grim that it's referred to as the "I agree with Scowcroft's analysis" report.

That's a reference to retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who was national security advisor to Bush's father, former President George H.W. Bush. Scowcroft said earlier this month that the Iraqi elections could deepen the conflict and "we may be seeing an incipient civil war."

Writing in the January 29 The Independent, Robert Fisk echoes that sentiment:

Few in Iraq believe that these elections will end the insurgency, let alone bring peace and stability. By holding the poll now - when the Shias, who are not fighting the Americans, are voting while the Sunnis, who are fighting the Americans, are not - the elections can only sharpen the divisions between the country's two largest communities.

(Note: The link is to the Information Clearinghouse reprint of the story; The Independent's version is in a for-pay archive.)

But there is an error of omission in that passage, one that explains why I think "may be seeing" fails to describe the crisis.

The error lies in the statement "the Sunnis, who are fighting the Americans." The omission is that American forces are no longer the only or even the main targets of insurgent violence. More and more, the targets are other Iraqis. More and more, the violence has been directed at the Iraqi security forces - the national guard and police, who are mostly Shiite, being attacked by insurgents, who are mostly Sunni. Even beyond that, even beyond what could be described as military targets, there have been attacks on funeral processions, on bus stations, on mosques, all targeting Shiites. There have been threats against schools and local agriculture directorates. Even Christian churches, which would seem to have very little to do with the politics of Iraq (Christians are a tiny minority), have been bombed.

Yes, there is an attempt to disrupt the elections through murderous violence; the attacks on polling places and election officials make that clear. But make no mistake: The election is not the point of the attacks, it is just the current focus. This is not about the elections per se, this is about who will be dominant in Iraq. This is about reactionary fundamentalists taking advantage of deep and bitter social and religious divisions to advance their own medieval agendas. It's about our having unleashed long-suppressed social forces with which we have no idea how to cope. This is about a civil war that dammit is more than incipient and that dammit even more is our fault. This is about bloodshed and death that we cannot contain but can only worsen.

We have enough blood on our hands. STDD>HO before we do any more damage.