On the success of the election. We genuinely don't know. That it happened is certainly a success. But the best measure of its success are the consequences. Those are still not knowable. The absence of the Sunnis in the election underlines the potential for severe religious conflict. The difficulties getting a new government in place, apparently, underlines the difficult if not impossible negotiations with Kurds, particularly over Kirkuk. The attacks on Shias in and around Kirkuk and the lack of Shia response show that any serious slow down in progress toward a government may well bring the Shias into the streets.
The elections lists had Sunni names on them. In some places, the Sunnis did well. They were hardly "absent" from the election, as you say. More important, since the elections there have been no attempts to disenfranchise them. The new constitution has means to accommodate them. The lack of sectarian violence speaks volumes for how successfully this aspect of things has been. You no doubt have noticed.
Check this out for a more or less decent statistical analysis of the vote.
patrickruffini.com
Note that the Kurds united despite two factions that had fought a civil war among themselves.
It's really quite amazing. But I suppose you won't hang up your gloves until the Final Reckoning, when we all will know everything to an absolute certainty.
As far as the casualties are concerned, they were low in 2003 because the insurgency had not yet begun in earnest. Most of the insurgency took place in 2004, particularly at the end of the year, when the heaviest casualties were reported. In January of '05, they were again quite high, reflecting the failed attempt to to derail the election. Since then, they have fallen dramatically. Check this out:
radicalruss.net
Casualties have fallen because, after the election, the insurgents have lost one of their main goals. Secondly, the US was mauling them severely. The insurgents simply do not want another Fallujah. |
