Yesterday marked a major stepping stone for the government of Iraq, and, consequently, for the United States and our armed forces that are deployed there. Sunday was the fifth major election in Iraq since the invasion in 2003, and only the third since the Iraqi constitution was drafted in 2005. It is also likely to be the final vote before the expected withdraw of coalition troops, scheduled to take place in the summer of 2011.
Security had been an issue leading up to the vote, but violence turned out to be lower than expected and had no impact on the election. Only three serious attacks occurred, killing 38. The largest on, an attack on an apartment complex in Baghdad, killed 25. Turn-out, although down from a high of 76% in 2005, was impressive, with experts predicting it to be about 60% this time around, a total that should make an established democracy like the United States blush.
It will be a few days before preliminary results are in, probably by the end of the week. It may be until the end of the month before the results are final, and then possibly a few months of negotiating to form some sort of coalition government. Based mainly on the areas and demographics of the turn-out, it is expected to be a good day for the current government of Nouri Al-Maliki and his "State of Law" coalition.
So this can be counted as a win for the United States and it's allies in the region. First, with less violence than expected, it seems as though the insurgency, and therefor our rationale for staying there, seems to be losing legitimacy. Also, with those already in power seemingly retaining that power, some sense of stability may finally be coming to the country.
The real question is what does this mean politically in the United States. Progressives, including the one that was recently elected President, have spent years saying that Iraq was a mistake, a lost cause that required us to get out sooner rather than later. Republicans, or more accurately, neo-cons, have spent years telling us to "stay the course." Now, with no "leaving Saigon" moment to remember this conflict, how will Americans feel about Iraq? Can the Republicans claim some sort foreign policy victory, here? What will happen next time a President wants to take us to war? Will Iraq be remembered as the quagmire it was for most of the past decade or as a symbol of what the United States military is capable of when we are willing to spend limitless amounts of blood and treasure?
2 comments:
I guess Iraq is getting better, and the violence might have been minimal for the election. But 3 attacks and 38 deaths would be hard-pressed to be called a victory. If I was a mother of one of the killed, I would think it had been a very dark day. But the conservatives (especially the neocons) will look at this and proclaim victory (hey, it worked, let's do it again - in Iran!). And how come it will take them months to negotiate a coalition government? What kind of democracy is that? The people voted, and they should have a winner. Its a screwy way to have an election. I think you paint this picture with too pretty of a brush.
It's true that any violence during an election is too much, but 38 deaths is less than any other recent Iraqi election. Also, in other parlamentary systems all over the world, it can take several weeks to form a governing coalition, and Iraq is a young democracy with hundreds of political parties, so such a timetable is to be expected.
Post a Comment