Iraq election truths

How much real democracy can we expect in Iraq and at what price? Colleen Redman assesses future probabilities in the light of US past performance

Let me get this straight. Under military occupation and martial law, Iraqis voted from a list of over 7,000 names that were approved by the U.S.-backed High Commission of Elections and were not available for them to review before the election.

At a cost of nearly 200 billion dollars, more than 1,400 American lives, and up to 100,000 Iraqi civilian lives, (The Lancet Report) Iraqis – excluding about a million Sunnis – cast ballots for people they probably didn’t know in an election that did not meet international election standards because the lack of security in Iraq made it unsafe for election monitors to be there. 

Elections promoted under occupation have always been suspect, and they should be. During the Cold War elections staged by the Soviets after invading Afghanistan, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia were denounced by the U.S. as “frauds.” In September of 1967, a New York Times headline read, “U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote…Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror.” The U.S.-managed Vietnamese elections were meant to validate the cost and rationale of the war there, but they did not bring democracy or end the resistance. The elections in Iraq aren’t likely to either.

Surely the majority of Iraqis, who overwhelmingly want the U.S.-led occupation out of their country, believe that voting is a step towards ending occupation. The election made for some compelling images that were sure to stir emotions, but will it actually change anything on the ground? Over 100,000 U.S. troops still occupy Iraq; Allawi, the Bremer-appointed Prime Minister with CIA ties, is still in power; every important Iraqi Ministry is run by U.S. advisors who make decisions and allocate spending; the Pentagon is reported to be building as many as 14 permanent military bases in Iraq (Chicago Tribune, March 23, 2004); shortages of electricity, gas, and water continue; and Iraqi civilians and American soldiers are still dying every day.

Sadly, the election turnout may be more of a victory for President Bush than one for the Iraqis. Bush can use the election to assert the legitimacy of the invasion (after the WMD war rationale has fizzled), and it can serve to take attention off failed objectives, lack of exit planning, and the growing call for the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq. Those who are calling for the withdrawal include some of the most widely respected conservative policy experts of our time, including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft, and James Baker. Scowcroft, a former National Security Advisor under H.W. Bush and Gerald Ford, recently referred to the war in Iraq as a “war of choice” that has jeopardized long-held alliances and endangered America’s status in the world. Before the elections he warned that they “won’t be a promising transformation” and that they have the potential for deepening the conflict.

Freedom, liberty, and democracy, in the case of Iraq, are powerful words applied prematurely, in a similar manner that Bush’s unfounded claims of Iraqi WMDs were. The lofty goals behind those words are certainly easier for Americans to rally behind than what many believe to be the true motives for the invasion of Iraq: establishing geo-political control at the heart of the oil-rich Arab region and a “democracy” that will welcome the type of free market economy on which U.S. economic growth depends. The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), written by the Neo-cons in 1997, outlines much of what our Middle Eastern policy is today. The U.S.-backed privatization schemes imposed by former U.S. pro-consul Paul Bremer can be viewed as economic conquests that will provide enormous windfalls for American corporations. Only the insurgency stands in the way of the privatization of Iraq.

What differentiates the Iraqi elections from President Bush’s earlier claim of victory, made in front of a banner reading “Mission Accomplished” or the Iraqi Transfer of Power in July of 2004? Both events evoked much fanfare while violence in Iraq was actually escalating. I wish the tragic conclusion of the October 2004 Lancet Report, citing that about 100,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq since the onset of the U.S.-led invasion, got as much attention as the devastation of the Asian tsunami did. I wish the loss of life described in that report was taken as seriously by the media as the recent Iraqi elections have been.

Note: This article was first published by JUST Response on February 10 2005. Colleen Redman is a writer and poet who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains. She can be reached via her website www.silverandgold.swva.net.

Return to top

Return to opening page