[Peace-discuss] Iraq Elections

[Morton K.Brussel]

The Iraq elections have run their course, but the Jensen-Youngblood 
analysis of their meaning, written beforehand in Counterpunch, seems 
all the more pertinent. mkb


January 28, 2005
Washington's Ballots (and Bullets)
Iraq's Non-Election

By ROBERT JENSEN and PAT YOUNGBLOOD

Predictably, the U.S. news media are full of discussion and debate 
about this weekend's election in Iraq. Unfortunately, virtually all the 
commentary misses a simple point: There will be no "election" on Jan. 
30 in Iraq, if that term is meant to suggest an even remotely 
democratic process.

Many Iraqis casting votes will be understandably grateful for the 
opportunity. But the conditions under which those votes will be cast -- 
as well as the larger context -- bear more similarity to a slowly 
unfolding hostage tragedy than an exercise in democracy. We refer not 
to the hostages taken by various armed factions in Iraq, but the way in 
which U.S. policymakers are holding the entire Iraqi population hostage 
to U.S. designs for domination of the region.

This is an election that U.S. policymakers were forced to accept and 
now hope can entrench their power, not displace it. They seek not an 
election that will lead to a U.S. withdrawal, but one that will bolster 
their ability to make a case for staying indefinitely.

This is crucial for anti-empire activists to keep in mind as the 
mainstream media begins to give us pictures of long lines at polling 
places to show how much Iraqis support this election and to repeat the 
Bush administration line about bringing freedom to a part of the world 
starved for democracy. Those media reports also will give some space to 
those critics who remain comfortably within the permissible ideological 
limits -- that is, those who agree that the U.S. aim is freedom for 
Iraq and, therefore, are allowed to quibble with a few minor aspects of 
administration policy.

The task of activists who step outside those limits is to point out a 
painfully obvious fact, and therefore one that is unspeakable in the 
mainstream: A real election cannot go on under foreign occupation in 
which the electoral process is managed by the occupiers who have clear 
preferences in the outcome.

That's why the U.S.-funded programs that "nurture" the voting process 
have to be implemented "discreetly," in the words of a Washington Post 
story, to avoid giving the Iraqis who are "well versed in the region's 
widely held perception of U.S. hegemony" further reason to mistrust the 
assumed benevolent intentions of the United States.

Post reporters Karl Vick and Robin Wright quote an Iraqi-born 
instructor from one of these training programs: "If you walk into a 
coffee shop and say, ëHi, I'm from an American organization and I'm 
here to help you,' that's not going to help. If you say you're here to 
encourage democracy, they say you're here to control the Middle East."

Perhaps "they" -- those well-versed Iraqis -- say that because it is an 
accurate assessment of policy in the Bush administration, as well as 
every other contemporary U.S. administration. "They" dare to suggest 
that the U.S. goal is effective control over the region's oil 
resources. But "we" in the United States are not supposed to think, let 
alone say, such things; that same Post story asserts, without a hint of 
sarcasm, that the groups offering political training in Iraq (the 
National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, International 
Republican Institute, and International Foundation for Election 
Systems) are "at the ambitious heart of the American effort to make 
Iraq a model democracy in the Arab world."

Be still my heart. To fulfill that ambition, U.S. troop strength in 
Iraq will remain at the current level of about 120,000 for at least two 
more years, according to the Army's top operations officer. For the 
past two years, journalists have reported about U.S. intentions to 
establish anywhere from four to 14 "enduring" military bases in Iraq. 
Given that there are about 890 U.S. military installations around the 
world to provide the capacity to project power in service of the U.S. 
political and economic agenda, it's not hard to imagine that planners 
might be interested in bases in the heart of the world's most important 
energy-producing region.

But in mainstream circles, such speculation relegates one to the same 
category as those confused Middle Easterners with their "widely held 
perception of U.S. hegemony." After all, Secretary of Defense Donald 
Rumsfeld has dismissed as "inaccurate and unfortunate" any suggestion 
that the United States seeks a permanent presence in Iraq. In April 
2003, Rumsfeld assured us that there has been "zero discussion" among 
senior administration officials about permanent bases in Iraq.

But let's return to reality: Whatever the long-term plans of 
administration officials, the occupation of Iraq has, to put it mildly, 
not gone as they had hoped. But rather than abandon their goals, they 
have adapted tactics and rhetoric. Originally the United States 
proposed a complex caucus system to try to avoid elections and make it 
easier to control the selection of a government, but the Iraqis refused 
to accept that scheme. Eventually U.S. planners had to accept elections 
and now are attempting to turn the chaotic situation on the ground to 
their advantage.

Ironically, the instability and violence may boost the chances of the 
United States' favored candidate, U.S.-appointed interim Prime Minister 
Ayad Allawi. While most electoral slates are unable to campaign or even 
release their candidates' names because of the violence, Allawi can 
present himself as a symbol of strength, running an expensive 
television campaign while protected by security forces. He has access 
to firepower and reconstruction funds, which may prove appealing to 
many ordinary Iraqis who, understandably, want the electricity to flow 
and the kidnappings and violence to stop.

Of course the United States can't guarantee the favored candidate will 
prevail. But whoever is in the leadership slot in Iraq will understand 
certain unavoidable realities of power. As the New York Times put it -- 
in the delicate fashion appropriate to the Times -- the recent 
announcement by Shi'a leaders that any government it forms would not be 
overtly Islamic was partly in response to Iraqi public opinion. But, as 
reporter Dexter Filkins reminded readers, U.S. officials "wield vast 
influence" and "would be troubled by an overtly Islamist government." 
And no one wants troubled U.S. officials, even Iraqi nationalists who 
hate the U.S. occupation but can look around and see who has the guns.

The realities on the ground may eventually mean that even with all 
those guns, the United States cannot impose a pro-U.S. government in 
Iraq. It may have to switch strategies again. But, no matter how many 
times Bush speaks of his fondness for freedom and no matter what games 
the planners play, we should not waver in an honest analysis of the 
real motivations of policymakers. To pretend that the United States 
might, underneath it all, truly want a real democracy in Iraq -- one 
that actually would be free to follow the will of the people -- is to 
ignore evidence, logic and history.

As blogger Zeynep Toufe put it: "All these precious words have now 
become something akin to brand names: "democracy," "freedom," 
"liberty," "empowerment." They don't really mean anything; they're just 
the names attached to things we do."

Right now, one of the things that U.S. policymakers do is to allow 
Iraqis to cast ballots under extremely constrained conditions. But 
whatever the results on Jan. 30, it will not be an election, if by 
"election" we mean a process through which people have a meaningful 
opportunity to select representatives who can set public policy free of 
external constraint. The casting of ballots will not create a 
legitimate Iraqi government. Such a government is possible only when 
Iraqis have real control over their own future. And that will come only 
when the United States is gone.

Robert Jensen is on the board and Pat Youngblood is coordinator of the 
Third Coast Activist Resource Center in Austin, TX. They can be reached 
at rjensen at uts.cc.utexas.edu and pat at thirdcoastactivist.org