Iraqi Caucuses A Long Way From Iowa...

[reprehensor]

IRAQI CAUCUSES A LONG WAY FROM IOWA

For many pundits, last week's electoral caucuses
in Iowa invoked warm and fuzzy notions about
grassroots democracy. The contrast with
U.S.-occupied Iraq is striking. Huge protests in
favor of immediate elections, inspired by Shiite
cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, have been
answered by U.S. officials with a promise to pull
out in July, but with no promise of elections by
then. (The official reason given is that no
census can be completed in time to produce full
voter rolls by July.)

As the rationale for the war shifts from ridding
the world of Saddam's purported weapons of mass
destruction to bringing democracy to the Middle
East, U.S. officials find themselves in a
quandary. If they allow elections immediately,
this could result in being asked by the Shiite
majority to leave the country -- thus throwing a
wrench in the U.S. plan to transfer its Persian
Gulf bases from Saudi Arabia to Iraq. And if they
postpone elections indefinitely -- or if they
sponsor an election that transparently guarantees
pro-U.S. results -- they look insincere.

The U.S. is even taking immense heat from Shiite
leaders for its plan for Iraqi caucuses to elect
a national assembly.

"When the U.S. occupation authority's plan for
caucuses is examined closely, it is not hard to
see why Iraqi Shiites disapprove," writes Ivan
Eland, director of the Independent Institute's
Center on Peace & Liberty, in his latest op-ed.

"Unlike the Iowa version of the caucuses, open to
everyone, participants in the Iraqi version,
under the current administration plan, have to be
selected by the Iraqi Governing Council -- the
hand-picked body of Iraqis fronting for U.S.
viceroy Paul Bremer's rule of Iraq -- or chosen
by local government officials who are cooperating
with the U.S. occupation authority."

This strategy, too, is fraught with risk: the
perception that the electoral process is unfair
could ignite a civil war.

"So after an ill-advised invasion and occupation
of Iraq, the administration now has no good
option," Eland continues.

"In the face of continuing guerrilla attacks, the
administration would be best advised to abandon
its desire for bases in that unstable land and to
bring in international supervision for delayed
direct elections, which will ensure genuine
popular political participation in Iraq. Then
perhaps Iraqis will be as happy as Iowans are
with their political process."

See, "Why Do Iowans Like To Caucus but Iraqis Don't?" by Ivan Eland (1/21/04)
http://www.independent.org/tii/news/040121Eland.html

Center on Peace & Liberty
http://www.independent.org/tii/tii_info/centerpeaceliberty.html

War on Terrorism
http://www.independent.org/tii/news/010915Terrorist.html

PUTTING "DEFENSE" BACK INTO U.S. DEFENSE POLICY:
Rethinking U.S. Security in the Post-Cold War
World, by Ivan Eland
http://www.independent.org/tii/catalog/cat_putting_defense.html
-----------------------------

From the Independent Institue's Lighthouse Newsletter
For previous issues of THE LIGHTHOUSE, see
http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/Lighthouse.html.