Robert Scheer (The Nation): Give Iraqis the Election They Want

[Jack Rabbit]

From The Nation
Issue of February 2
Posted online Tuesday January 20

Give Iraqis the Election They Want
By Robert Scheer

Proving again that Martin Luther King Jr. had the right idea, the peaceful demonstrations by thousands of Iraqi Shiites demanding direct elections have been a far more effective challenge to the arrogance of the U.S. occupation than the months of guerrilla violence undertaken by a Sunni-led insurgency.
Led by clerics demanding real democracy, the protests have strongly raised this question: What right does the United States have to tell people that they cannot be allowed to rule themselves?
With the stated reasons for the U.S. invasion--the imminent threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and his ties to Al Qaeda--now a proven fraud, the Bush Administration was left with one defense: It was bringing democracy to this corner of the Mideast. If we now fail to promptly return full sovereignty to the Iraqis, inconvenient as that outcome may be, the invasion will stand exposed as nothing more than old-fashioned imperial plunder of the region's oil riches--and the continued occupation could devolve into civil war.
The Shiites do not require divine revelation to see through the U.S. plan to perpetuate its influence through an opaque process of caucuses designed, implemented and run by Washington and its Iraqi appointees. It is just colonial politics as usual. That's why the conservative Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the revered cleric of Iraq's Shiites (who make up 60% of the country), is requesting a transparent one-person, one-vote election.

Read more.

[auburnblu]

1. Saddam better hope that doesn't happen

The Shiites marched today demanding immediate execution of Saddam.

[Frances]

2. I think that we have stirred up a hornet's nest in Iraq

We said that we wanted to bring democracy to Iraq, but if Iraq has a truly democratic election, what happens to the rights of women? What happens between the Shites and the Sunnis? What happens to the Kurds? If the Kurds have autonomy, what happens if Turkey and the Kurds go to war? But if we leave a phony government in charge, won't we be seen as occupiers and fair game for insurgents.

[madrchsod]

3. full elections carried out by the UN and

other world organizations such as jimmy carters group. turkey , Egypt ,and Indonesia would lend creditability to the process since they are the largest of the Muslim world`s elected governments.

[Jack Rabbit]

4. Related thread in LBN

US set for Iraq election retreat started by Jack Rabbit Tuesday January 20 9:21 pm PST from an article in the Guardian Unlimited.

[Martin Eden]

5. Prolonging the occupation

The Shiites say they want direct elections. If we give them what they want, and work with them to expedite the matter on their terms, it will go a long way towards defusing the anti-American anger that is rising among Iraq's largest faction (60% of the population).

By steadfastly refusing them the kind of democracy they clamor for and installing a government they will likely view as illegitimate, we are almost guaranteeing a prolonged insurgency that will keep our troops in the country and in harm's way.

And just maybe, that's the plan after all.

[Snappy]

6. Explain the Plan

I don't understand how a prolonged Occupation helps the Neo Fascists.

[mike1963]

7. Halliburton, KBR, permanent bases, oil, hegemony, empire.

It doesn't get much simpler than that...

[Martin Eden]

8. They need a rationale for maintaining military presence.

One of the main neocon goals is to establish bases in the Middle East from which to project power. They'd like to move their main bases out of Saudi Arabia, and Iraq -- with its huge oil reserves and current power vacuum -- is just what the neocons ordered.

If a legitimate Iraqi democracy were to emerge from the kind of direct elections the Shiites want, -- and as a result the insurgency were to dissipate -- the neocons would not so easily justify a continued large military presence.

And they don't want a legitimately elected Iraqi government that would likely tell the U.S. to get the hell out. They need an Iraq that is dependent on the U.S. military to provide "security", and government "leaders" who owe their positions in that government to our continuing military presence.

Although the dead and wounded U.S. troops are a political liability for the neocon empire, this is more than offset by their need for constant public reminders that the "war" against "terror" is far from being won.

If the dream of Pax Americana is to become a reality, we need a steady stream of bad guys as a pretext for military deployments.