I'm just asking.
"Will they happen" seemed too wide a question. We've got to assume they will as everyone in power has said they will.
But I'm just asking for the sake of a discussion:
Will they mean anything?
How will things turn out?
How will life in Iraq change after election day - or when the results are certified?
Who has details about how the elections will work?
I'm curious. Predict.
UPDATE 1.12.05 - See also these three who have made up their mind on the question.
Shark had a prior post and questions: IRAQI ELECTION MEMO: Vote (and) or Die? related to the Iraqi elections. ZZ Bachman's: Will Iraqis Turn Out to Vote? and Igor Volsky's: To vote or not to vote. That is the question...
Article comments
1 - Tim Hall
I'm curious. Predict.
* A lot of violence on election day, with the insurgents doing all they can to disrupt it, including attacks on polling stations.
* Reasonably turnout in the Sunni south and the Kurdish north.
* Very low turnout in the Sunni triangle, with voters either boycotting the poll or too intimidated to vote.
* A government of sorts elected, which won't be regarded as legitimate by those who didn't win or didn't participate. This will happen regardless of whether or not the election was free and fair.
* The insurgency will continue. They will ultimately lose, but the big question is whether it will take two years or twenty, and whether the final body count will run into thousands or millions. Worst case scenario is a full-scale inter-ethnic bloodbath.
2 - Shark
Prediction:
* elections "cancelled" everywhere except in the minds of the Bush administration;
* a tiny turnout;
* FOX News reports that early exit polls show Bush won; go figure
* Katherine Harris recalled from Baghdad;
* election is actually a Shiite 'victory' -- and the beginnings of a Shiite Theocracy that gives a big wet kiss to our 'good friend' Iran
* more violence against Iraqi civilians
* more dead American GIs (over 1300 at the moment, but hey, the day is young!)
* an escalation in the civil war
* GOP leaders ask for an exit strategy
* USA leaves by end of year -- Iraq is much worse than when we arrived
* After his affair with Wolfowitz is discovered, Rumsfeld admits he is a "proud gay man" and offers to mud wrestle anyone who thinks he's failed in his duties to the American military; he finally resigns saying, "You go to war with the Secretary you have."
=================
Hey kids, ta hell with pride; I'm reduced to shameless begging. Will someone please -- fer the luv of gawd -- go viddy my post on the Iraqi Election? Please?
For the first 10 visitors, I'll email ya my credit card number.
Thanks in advance,
Shark
3 - Lightindeloafers
All depends on what your definition of "well" is (sorry, Bill...)
Nothing I've read suggests that most Shiite AND Sunni Iraqis, let alone minority tribes and neighbor states,
will accept any foreseeable result as legitimate. So much for replacing despotism with democracy.
By this stated goal, the election is a foregone disaster. Violence is sure to worsen, pushing Iraq closer to anarchy.
I predict the effect on Bush's unstated goals will range from somewhat favorable to disastrous.
At best, America will accept a bloody, disputed election result as the best that could be hoped for. Saddam's trial will restore his luster as a war trophy.
Up to a point, post-election violence and instability will buy Bush time and pretext for his larger Middle East aims: securing a strategic base and the region's oil infrastructure.
The rest of the world will only cry foul. However, nothing I've read convinces me that the UN or any individual nation will meaningfully challenge U.S. actions.
This crummy outcome, well within Bush's proven ability to spin, would probably also tighten the spiritual bond with voters who elected him, inasmuch as it is based on fear and imperialistic impulses.
Although I think this is what will happen, related events may make the election flop even on Bush's terms.
Unforeseen high U.S. military casualties, especially in a single event, or fresh atrocities no less sensational than Abu Gharib, may finally turn America's consensus against Bush. The administration's military incompetence makes these more than remote possibilities.
Among long shots, the most romantic would be a "McCarthy Moment" that transcends spinnable headlines to galvanize public opinion. Don't hold your breath. The key ingredient for such a pop-cultural epiphany is a sense of shame, all but extinct in Bush's America.
I've said nothing that a lot of folks haven't, here and there. Alas, evil is banal. But my take on mainstream reportage, the more thoughtful blogs I read, and American history makes my crystal ball clearer and more dreadful than ever...
Peace,
Fred
4 - Shark
Bears repeating:
Fred: "...The key ingredient for such a pop-cultural epiphany is a sense of shame, all but extinct in Bush's America."
Ouch.
True and profound.
5 - Temple Stark
And I'll await the more positive predictions which are out there - right?
And go visit Shark's too. :-) I'll link it and the other one I think is around when I get home.
6 - RJ
Sunnis largely boycott
Shia turnout is huge
Kurdish turnout is huge
Lots of attacks by terrorists in the Sunni Triangle area
"Moderate" Shia win the day
The UN complains about "irregularities" but it is still a legit vote in all but maybe 2 or 3 Iraqi provinces
7 - Dave Nalle
RJ sounds about right, except that I think there are a LOT of secularized Sunnis who want to vote who might turn out regardless of boycotts if it looks at all like the violence is under control. If you read any of the Iraqi blogs it's pretty clear that a lot of aspects of Iraqi life are somewhat normalized. People have cell phones, they have jobs, though unemployment is high. They can move around most parts of the country, and although there are daily violent events, they're not at the level where people won't even leave their houses for fear of violence - at least in most areas of the country.
The ironic thing is that if there is a fair election with good turnout the person we really have to thank for it is Saddam Hussein. Without his decades of secular leadership people would be too religiously divided to cooperate in an election, and without his farcical pseudo-democracy setting a negative example which people want to rebel against Iraqi voters would be a lot less motivated to get their votes in.
As for the government which results, I expect it to be a relatively chaotic mess with lots of fluid coalition building, which is great for democracy, but not so great for suppressing the insurgents.
And despite what some on here are saying about the current 'puppet' government and the elections being a fraud designed to install a pro-western regime, the Iraqis are for the most part controlling the election and making it as legitimate as possible. They are picking the candidates, the platforms and forming the coalitions between their 1700 political parties, and no one is interfering with who they pick and how they campaign. Of course some parties aren't even going to name their candidates until the week before the election for security reasons, but campaigning is still going on furiously behind the scenes They wouldn't be campaigning so hard and the insurgents wouldn't be trying so hard to disrupt the elections if there wasn't a pretty good chance of a fair and representative result.
It's not going to produce a perfect government and those who choose not to vote will be hurt by their decision, but the government will be good enough to get them on the right track so that if they can survive to the next election they may get the government they really deserve.
Dave
8 - Shark
Dave: "...a LOT of secularized Sunnis... might turn out... if it looks at all like the violence is under control."
* ROFLMAO.
* mark yer calendars; I've vowed never to use 'emoticons' -- but now seemed especially appropriate.
9 - Eric Olsen
If in fact something that looks like a real election can be held, and I am not certain it can, then the psychological impact will be much greater than the practical impact: I think the Palestinian election is a possible portend for the positive. Nothing clean or easy is going to emerge from Iraq for some time - it will remain a bloody mess, but I disagree that things are worse than when Saddam was in power, but again it will take time for the practical aspects of this to show up, perhaps a long time and that is very painful.
10 - Shark
"...it will remain a bloody mess, but I disagree that things are worse than when Saddam was in power..."
Maybe. I happen to think we're close to crossing that boundary at the moment.
This isn't meant specifically for you, E, but for all who supported the invasion:
At what point does "It's worth it" become "It wasn't worth it."
Seriously.
signed,
Just Curious
11 - Temple Stark
By definition an Iraqi blogger has it good, doesn't he / she? They can reach a computer - or own one - and type on one.
12 - Dave Nalle
>>By definition an Iraqi blogger has it good, doesn't he / she? They can reach a computer - or own one - and type on one.<<
I spend a lot of time on Iraqi blogs, and it seems like the people who are blogging come from a variety of areas, including some of the most troubled ones. In a lot of areas the coalition and the interim government have done a fantastic job of reestablishing the infrustructure. Power was iffy during the fall, but even in the bad areas they had at least 6 hours a day and it's a lot better now. Plus phone service and cell service has been consistently pretty good. And remember, this is an educated, middle-class society, at least in the cities. Most of those blogging are students or professionals of some sort.
Anyway, back to the topic. Of much relevance is the poll published yesterday in the Iraqi newspaper Al-Sabah. The polled 5000 people in the Baghdad area about the election and got these results:
Will the security problems cause you to?
Not come out and vote the day of elections = 18.3%
Come out and vote the day of elections = 78.3%
No opinion = 3.4%
Do you support the Iraqi Government having its own official newspaper?
Yes = 67.7%
No = 30.9%
Do Not know = 1.4%
Do you support military action against the terrorists?
Yes = 87.7 %
No = 11.1%
Don’t Know = 1.2%
That seems at least somewhat promising.
Dave
13 - Eric Olsen
Shark, to answer your question honestly: I don't know where that line is - it comes down to priorities and relative valuation. There are still people who think WW2 wasn't worth it.
14 - JR
At what point does "It's worth it" become "It wasn't worth it."
When the bungled invasion failed to topple the other "world's worst leader".
15 - Eric Olsen
Castro? Kim Jong-Il? Ayatollah Motherfucker? Prince Bandarsnatch?
16 - JR
None of them are responsible for guiding the policies of the nation which drives the world economy, sits on the world's largest nuclear arsenal, uses more natural resources than any other nation, and is currently pumping a quarter of the greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Kim Jong-Il, no matter how creepy he is, will never have a significant effect on the future living standards of the majority of the human race.
17 - Eric Olsen
by this definition then, wouldn't ANY U.S. president be the "world's worst leader"?
18 - JR
Only if they're making things worse.
19 - Temple Stark
I updated to add links
UPDATE 1.12.05 - See also these three who have made up their mind on the question. Shark had a prior post and questions: IRAQI ELECTION MEMO: Vote (and) or Die? related to the Iraqi elections.
ZZ Bachman's: Will Iraqis Turn Out to Vote? and Igor Volsky's: To vote or not to vote. That is the question...