Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "It will be a big mistake if we continue to avoid commencing the electoral process, even if some of the local leaders are not particular "democratic". Make THEM solve the problems of their people rather than assuming responsibility for such solutions ourselves."
I'm stunned, stunned, to see that you're no longer parroting the "everything is great" bullshit of the administration. What ever could have woken you up?
Here's the latest news:
Occupation Forces Halt Elections Throughout Iraq
Washington Post, June 28, 2003
U.S. military commanders have ordered a halt to local elections and self-rule in provincial cities and towns across Iraq, choosing instead to install their own handpicked mayors and administrators, many of whom are former Iraqi military leaders.
The decision to deny Iraqis a direct role in selecting municipal governments is creating anger and resentment among aspiring leaders and ordinary citizens, who say the U.S.-led occupation forces are not making good on their promise to bring greater freedom and democracy to a country dominated for three decades by Saddam Hussein.
...
Occupation authorities initially envisioned the creation of local assemblies, composed of several hundred delegates who would represent a city or town's tribes, clergy, middle class, women and ethnic groups. Those delegates would select a mayor and city council.
That process was employed successfully in the northern city of Kirkuk, but U.S. civilian and military occupation officials now say postwar chaos has left Iraq unprepared to stage popular elections in most cities.
"In a postwar situation like this, if you start holding elections, the people who are rejectionists tend to win," Bremer said. "It's often the best-organized who win, and the best-organized right now are the former Baathists and to some extent the Islamists." Bremer was referring to members of Hussein's Baath Party and religiously oriented political leaders.
...
washingtonpost.com
I would guess that the occupation authorities will allow elections when they are sure that the electorate will vote in officials friendly to the occupation authorities. With the spiralling descent of Iraq into chaos, anarchy and guerilla war, that will be maybe 3 or 6 months after never.
By the way, if you're suffering from a bit of "deja vu", the same thing happened early on in Vietnam:
...
[Ngo Dinh Diem] became prime minister of South Vietnam in 1954 just as the defeated French forces left. The peace accord called for elections in 1956 and unification of the divided country. With American support, Ngo cancelled the elections, knowing full well that Ho Chi Minh would have easily won the presidency.
...
us.history.wisc.edu
As usual, our leaders mouth the words "democracy", but refuse to let it actually happen, when they don't think the results will be in our best interests. Shades of Algeria.
Our best bet is to organize elections, let the bastards vote their favorite bastards into power, train an independent military that the bastards will have some difficulty perverting, and then let the bastards run the place. If the bastards continue to support terrorism, then we can go back to the situation pre 9/11.
-- Carl |
