The Elections

With the elections just four days away, unsurprisingly, the voter intimidation in Iraq has been ratched up considerably. According to the NY Times, the "insurgents", or, in this case, the savages, have been showering Baghdad with leaflets containing the following message:

"To those of you who think you can vote and then run away, we will shadow you and catch you, and we will cut off your heads and the heads of your children."

The Times further notes that Iraqi officials will be pleased if the nationwide turnout reaches 50 percent of the 14 million eligible voters. Well, although I'm no psychic, I think its pretty safe to say that 50 percent is simply not happening. Not even close. Perhaps I can't comprehend the will of a long oppressed people to exercise a new found right, but I have a hard time believing that folks will put their lives and, more importantly, the lives of their loved ones at risk to do so. As inimitable Frank Costanza noted in the post and comments here, the situation is just entirely too unstable. I mean really, if the insurgents can get at our troops in their own mess hall, is there any doubt that they'll be able to wreak some serious havoc here? I simply can't help but believe (even with a low turnout) that the headlines we'll be reading on the 31st will not be celebrating any "Freedom", but instead lamenting a "Bloodbath." Here's hoping that I'm wrong.

Update: Nice election related Boondocks strip today courtesy of all-star Griever Jay Jay.

Comments

[Bluehorseshoe]

Well, a delay in the elections has a few implications:

a) The terrorists (not "insurgents"...) would gain an important confidence boost. It is obvious that they are on the ropes at the moment. This would greatly strengthen them both confidence-wise and in the Arab "Street".
b)As this kind of intimidation is occurring in mainly Sunni areas, you would dis-enfranchise the 80% of Kurds and Shia who are in favour of the elections.
c)The US stays in Iraq longer, spending more money and more US deaths and casualties.

50% of eligible voters is a great result - the US 2004 election turnout was approx 60% of eligible voters. 30-40% would be acceptable in Iraq. Why should Iraq in it's first election have comparable turnout stats the US, after the US has had hundreds of years of democracy?

[Frank]

Well, that's kind of the point. 50% is a great result - if turnout is anywhere close to that and there are only minor incidents, I think all of us who have an interest in the process will be rather pleased. But it just doesn't feel like that will be the case.

As for delaying, at this point it's moot to talk about it. A delay would embolden insurgents/terrorists/whatever-press-spin-term-you-want-to-use. As I suggested in my post from a few days back, my problem is with the US setting these hard dates years in advance, when they know damn well that they have to hold to them to not lose face, no matter the circumstances. Well, the circumstances now are a little more, I think, than they bargained for.

[Babu]

That on top of the fact that Bush promised us Iraqi elections back in the presidential race, what kind of leader would lie to the public?

[UnknownColumn]

The Iraqi elections are scheduled for the 31st.

Today 31 U.S. Marines died.

Symbolism? The vibes are dark.

[bluehorseshoe]

Hey Nostradamus, they died in a chopper crash, not in combat.....since when was freindly fire prophetic?

[UnknownColumn]

Since when issn't it? And who said anything about being "prophetic?"

I just pointed out that the numbers are the same. That's weird. Don't you watch that new show Numbers on CBS?

Me neither.

[CROH]

If voter turnout is >50% Bush will be looking very good. If it is >60%, Bush will be unstoppable. I caught an interview with expert on elections who has been working in Iraq and he said the world will be shocked next week with turnout possibly as high as 70+%. I know some want us to fail in Iraq but I am praying for Iraqi freedom all the way!

[briandtw]

I don't know anyone who is hoping we fail in Iraq...where do you guys get this stuff?

[bluehorsesoe]

The BBC, CBS, the entire EU/French media establishment, the Mike Moore wing of the Democrats....

[CROH]

Most Democrats want total failure in Iraq so they can have a chance to regain power. If this democracy thing works in Iraq, the Dems will not regain any type of power in our lifetimes. Trust me, there are people like Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, etc who are praying for more violence and civil war.

[Frank]

I'm a Democrat, CROH. I would like to see either, but not both, a Democratic president or a Democratic majority in at least one of the houses of Congress. I run a blog in which hundreds of people get an insight into my thoughts.

Do I want total failure in Iraq? Since you seem to know so fucking much about me and my cohorts, please clue me in.

[poll wiz]

I agree that top Dem leadership wants failure. The average Dem wants elections to go ok but don't want Bush to get any credit. Sounds like CROH and Frank have valid points

[briandtw]

You're right. You caught me. I hope thousands more of our young men and women are killed and maimed. You guys really take the cake. You have no clue what's going on in this country.

[Frank]

It's interesting - which faction of our government is responsible for:

a) supplying our troops in Iraq with insufficient and/or shoddy armor
b) a policy that holds the Geneva Conventions obsolete, resulting in relaxed standards for interrogation, directly leading to the twin PR disasters of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib
c) the dismissal of the Iraqi army in 2003, at least a portion of which would have been sympathetic to the ouster of Saddam and could have helped win the hearts and minds battle in securing the country
d) the stop loss policy that has resulted in exhausted, over-extended troop commitments and lower morale

These are only four things that have made what we have to accomplish in Iraq far more difficult, if not impossible. No member of the "top Dem leadership" is responsible for these fuckups.

Which group wants failure again?

[bluehorseshoe]

Sheesh, and the fact the Dems STILL didn't win is a huge indictment....for God's sake get Obama out front.

I cant imagine any SENIOR Dem or half intelligent Dem supporter seriously wanting a US Military capitulation in a Vietnam-esque sense. Not sure about the Teddy Kennedy faction(he probably is a patriot when sober) but the Mike Moore/Deaniac Moonbats are another story. I'm sure there are a deranged few who think a US military defeat is a good thing as it damages the Neo-cons.