Millions of Iraqis defy bomb and rocket attacks to vote

[jimmy olsen]

Hopefully al-Maliki will get reelected and our draw down can be continued.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article7053236.ece

March 7, 2010
Millions of Iraqis defy bomb and rocket attacks to vote

Oliver August, Baghdad


Millions of Iraqis braved a wave of violent attacks today to vote in an election seen as a crucial test of the country's fledgeling and fragile democracy less than six months before United States combat troops leave the country.

Long queues were reported at many polling stations including in Sunni towns that mainly boycotted the 2005 parliamentary elections, despite a series of bomb blasts and rocket and grenade fire that killed at least 38 people.

But as Western governments described the vote as a success, officials privately voiced fears that the turnout would be less than early expectations and that Iraq's new government would lack the strength to make the country secure enough for American troops to withdraw. A Western diplomat who closely observed the voting said: "Fraud was our main worry originally but turnout looks even more tricky now. We must have a credible election to proceed."

For Iraq and for the US, the vote is make or break. An inconclusive election and the rise of a weak prime minister could trap Baghdad in a cycle of violence and instability, and with it the US President. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is the frontrunner but faces strong competition from both secular and sectarian candidates, including Ayad Allawi, the former prime minister who leads an alliance of prominent Sunnis and Shias.


The Obama Administration has said that it will withdraw all US combat troops by late August to free them up for Afghanistan — but only if the situation allows it. An election lacking credibility will undermine support for democracy in Iraq and weaken its next government to the point where militia fighting could return.

This morning insurgents launched rockets aimed at the Green Zone, home of the Prime Minister and the Government, and attacked polling stations with roadside bombs around the country.

Most Iraqis interviewed by The Times in polling stations said that they were not frightened by the mortar and bomb attacks and were voting in defiance of the violence. But many more outside said that they have not voted and were worried about security.

In a statement the American Government acknowledged the difficulties it faces in Iraq. President Obama said: "I have great respect for the millions of Iraqis who refused to be deterred by acts of violence, and who exercised their right to vote today. Their participation demonstrates that the Iraqi people have chosen to shape their future through the political process."

The British Government echoed Mr Obama's concerns. David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, said: "The determination to vote has been significant, but the violence and loss of life shows the extent of the challenge faced by the Iraqi people. We condemn all terrorist attacks without reservation."

It was Iraq's second full parliamentary election since the American invasion and the first in which Baghdad was back in overall charge. An Iraqi government official said: "We fear that the explosions and mortars will have a negative effect on election turnout. People in Baghdad are used to this but they still worry. That makes the election vulnerable."

The Iraqi Government was clearly concerned after this morning's barrage of mortars and bombs, restricting traffic even further than was originally planned. Journalists were prevented from reaching bomb sites, reducing the amount of coverage the attacks received in the local media.

Later in the day, when fewer than expected voters showed up, the Government lifted a vehicle ban intended to keep car bombs off the streets of the capital. After weeks of being told that they had to walk to polling stations, voters were suddenly encouraged to drive to cast their ballot.

The Western diplomat said: "If Iraqis don't have a sense that the next government speaks and stands for them, then they are likely to turn away from the democratic political process. When they see only chaos they are more likely to accept the return of a strongman ruler."

[Josquius]

Hopefully it won't go all Afghanistan.

[citizen k]

Hopefully al-Maliki will get reelected and our draw down can be continued.

Hopefully, if Maliki is wins, he'll throw Allawi and the secularists a bone. That's a faction that must be fostered.

[Admiral Yi]

What do you like about Malaki Tim?  Only positive point I can find is that he has finally learned how to shave.

[jimmy olsen]

What do you like about Malaki Tim?  Only positive point I can find is that he has finally learned how to shave.

Things have been going quite well under him, why change it?

[Martim Silva]

The whole situation is a Class A clusterfuck.

Apart from the fact that the political situation is totally polarized, with factions spawning from other factions, there is the problem that NOBODY in the area wants a stable Iraq.

Iran likes its influence on the shi'a and wants to keep it like that.

Syria prefers a weak Iraq, as it removes a potential rival.

Saudi Arabia sees that chance to make its wahaabit sect more influential amongst the Sunnis. Not to mention that the Iranian bogeyman is useful to keep the other smaller states docile.

Turkey fears a compromise will allow the Kurds more autonomy.

The Kurds don't want a stronger Iraq, as it may make Baghdad more assertive.

Israel prefers to see the Muslims fight each other.

There isn't really much to help, really... only the US wants some compromise, but everybody agrees that the Americans don't understand the situation.

The Baath'its were the cream of the crop of Iraq and they've been pushed out. That leaves Iraq with its less bright/more corrupt as its leaders. The former top iraquis are simply... "disappointed with the American 'democratization' process", as one of them told me [several took refuge in Portugal].

Not to mention that only now the officers of the older army will be reinstated. The disbanding of the armed forces was THE dumbest thing the US administration could had ever made.

Hopefully, if Maliki is wins, he'll throw Allawi and the secularists a bone. That's a faction that must be fostered.

Allawi was/is a Baath'ist that fell out of favour with Saddam and is the best bet to get Iraqs' best back. The problem is that the anti-Baath/pro-Maliki supporters hate Allawis' guts, while Allawis' supporters don't get along with most of the other factions.

[Jaron]

Bush supported Maliki. So I hope his opponent wins.

[Maximus]

What do you like about Malaki Tim?  Only positive point I can find is that he has finally learned how to shave.

How is that a positive?

[garbon]

A former top official is disappointed? Stop the presses!

[Admiral Yi]

How is that a positive?

That 5 o'clock shadow used to make him look like a Hana Barbera villain.

[Martim Silva]

A former top official is disappointed? Stop the presses!

More accurately, the whole country is a mess and the conditions were created so that very few now have interest in seeing the Iraqi nation rise again as a stable state.

In other words, the US pretty much destroyed Iraq for the forseeing decades, and the Iraqis can only hope (with little conviction) that something will improve in the future.

Bush supported Maliki. So I hope his opponent wins.

Al-Maliki is an example of what happens when a politician tries a national route for Iraq. He first rose to power based on sectarianism (he's a Shi'a), but has recently tried to create a more generalized powerbase, especially reaching out to former Baath'ist generals and other Sunnis.

The result? In the South many Shi'a parties who backed him have cut their support and formed a coalition close to Iran, and in the North al-Maliki's Kurdish allies saw the rise of a dissenting leader, who founded a new party which has enough backing to defy both existing Kurdish parties.

You can't reforge a nation in these circumstances. Elections alone will never ever decide anything, that's not what saves a shattered nation, especially because chunks of the nation have opposing agendas and all the other nations around it don't want Iraq to be solid again.

[grumbler]

Apart from the fact that the political situation is totally polarized, with factions spawning from other factions, there is the problem that NOBODY in the area wants a stable Iraq.
(snip)

One can deconstruct things to prove the exact same thing about Russia, Iran, etc etc.

[Martinus]

Apart from the fact that the political situation is totally polarized, with factions spawning from other factions, there is the problem that NOBODY in the area wants a stable Iraq.
(snip)

One can deconstruct things to prove the exact same thing about Russia, Iran, etc etc.

Certainly not Russia - it's political situation is anything but polarized. In fact there is a pretty total unification under Putin, and any opposition that is allowed to exist politically is doing so at the Kremlin's whim.

[Razgovory]

Big surprise that Martim thought the Fascist leadership of old Iraq was the "cream of the crop".

[grumbler]

Big surprise that Martim thought the Fascist leadership of old Iraq was the "cream of the crop".

Or that the new leadership must therefor be more corrupt than the old.  That almost isn't even possible.