You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq-Jordan
Iraqi Minister Says Election Delay Might Be Needed
2005-01-04
Iraqi Defense Minister Hazim Al-Shaalan said yesterday he favored delaying elections beyond Jan. 30 if Sunni Muslims are not planning to take part.
Do you intend to delay them forever if they never take part?
Shaalan, in Cairo for medical treatment, told reporters that Iraq was asking Egypt to intervene to try to persuade the Sunnis to vote. He was speaking after talks with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit. "If there is any difficulty in them (Sunnis) taking part, then the question of postponing them (the elections) for another period arises. That I believe is the safest and most proper way so that all sectors and the full spectrum of Iraqi society can take part in elections on one day," he said.
I, on the other hand, feel that when a segment of the population digs in its heels and announces that elections are un-Islamic and that they're not going to vote and they'll kill anyone who tries to vote, they should be taken at their word. And exterminated.
Several Iraqi groups, mainly Sunnis, have argued in favor of postponing the elections. The once-privileged minority faces the prospect of the vote cementing the newfound political power of the long-oppressed Shiite majority. But Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, like Shaalan a secular Shiite, has said he wants the elections to go ahead on time. Shiites, led by Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, their most influential cleric, have also insisted the polls go ahead, as have the United States and Shiite neighbor Iran.
Posted by:Fred

#16  Do we have any American soldiers posting here on this subject?

I honestly don't know, LH, but I thought it important to include them in your equation of Iraqi fear and immobility in the face of the elections.
Posted by: Jules 187   2005-01-04 4:22:58 PM  

#15  I can guarantee you that if there were armed groups targeting polling places in the US, my wife wouldnt vote, no matter how important the issue.

What if it was a chance in God knows how long to actually have a say in who is to run the country and how, and to put into place something to replace a dictator with genocidal tendencies?

Pretty strong incentive to participate, I'd say.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2005-01-04 4:18:23 PM  

#14  We would also have to include the fact that American soldiers are there risking their lives for the benefit of Iraqis, in the midst of the fear they rightly feel.

well yes, if some American soldier in Iraq posts here saying to hell with the Sunni Arabs who wont risk their lives to vote, Id sit and listen. Do we have any American soldiers posting here on this subject?
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2005-01-04 3:26:06 PM  

#13  Then those that aren't interested in the rise of another Baathist state or even an Iran-style fundie regime need to look beyond the security situation at the bigger picture.

I can guarantee you that if there were armed groups targeting polling places in the US, my wife wouldnt vote, no matter how important the issue. Not everyones brave.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2005-01-04 3:24:42 PM  

#12  I don't recall the defense minister making policy. If he doesn't publicly agree with Allawi (and the big guy standing behind him), maybe he should find new work
Posted by: Frank G   2005-01-04 3:05:07 PM  

#11  While there seems to be widespread support for the insurgency among Sunni Arabs, im not sure it exceeds 50%. The rest are too scared to reign in the insurgents and their supporters. I for one, am not willing to judge the fears of people subject to terrorist violence every day, while sit at a keyboard in safety (more or less) thousands of miles away.

But that's not the complete equation, is it? We would also have to include the fact that American soldiers are there risking their lives for the benefit of Iraqis, in the midst of the fear they rightly feel. The damaged pride and humiliation we always hear the Arab world suffers would be somewhat healed and self-empowerment will be realized if courage ends up trumping fear.
Posted by: Jules 187   2005-01-04 2:41:24 PM  

#10  And even if 60% supported the insurgency? Does that make the remaining 40% culpable? We've had this argument in other contexts, again and again. Democratic values, the ones we want to impart to Iraqis, say youre culpable for what YOU do, not for what a member of your tribe, your ethnic group, or your religion does.

Then those that aren't interested in the rise of another Baathist state or even an Iran-style fundie regime need to look beyond the security situation at the bigger picture. Is concern over security really that big a deal to the point of forfeiting participation (and representation) in a new government that will no doubt be worlds better than what existed before? What about people that they know that are involved in terror? Is it worth staying silent about individuals that they know fall into that category?

These people need to understand that the days of relative privilege they enjoyed under the protection of a brutal dictator of their religious stripe are gone, and no one, not even their own Sunni kin (as evidenced by Fallujah before being taken apart), is going to necessarily bend over backwards to grant them any special favors.

It's time the Sunnis of Iraq took their future into their own hands, and do something for themselves for once. The problem is emanating largely from their own camp, and in the end, it is up to them to clean up their act.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2005-01-04 2:30:46 PM  

#9  the 200,000 figure is being tossed around by the left as more proof of "quagmire" Im not sure its news. We all know that there are several supporters for every insurgent. If we counted everyone who did anything for the Iraqi Govt or the coalition, wed get a much larger number than the number of folks actually serving in the IP, ING, and Iraqi Army.

There are IIUC, about 5 million Sunni Arabs in Iraq. Lets assume 40% want the insurgency to win. Thats 2 million people, of whom, assuming the 200,000 figure is correct, about 10% are actively involved. That still leaves a majority, 60% who dont want the insurgency to win.

And even if 60% supported the insurgency? Does that make the remaining 40% culpable? We've had this argument in other contexts, again and again. Democratic values, the ones we want to impart to Iraqis, say youre culpable for what YOU do, not for what a member of your tribe, your ethnic group, or your religion does.


People who boycotts do so at their own cost, I agree. But its not unreasonable to ask for SOME security when you go vote. To the extent that folks dont vote cause theyre NOT secure (and I can already anticipate the post-election debate about causality) that reduces the legitimacy of the election.

Posted by: Liberalhawk   2005-01-04 1:31:48 PM  

#8  And if the head of intelligence services in Baghdad is right and the total number of insurgents is 200,000? A rough calculation would suggest that one in ten Sunni Arabs of suitable age is actively involved in the terrorism. That's an awfully big SOME.

Those who want an excuse not to vote, won't vote. The fact is there are a great many Sunnis who don't want democracy to succeed. The anti-Democratic Sunni arab minority shouldn't be allowed to succeed in delaying the elections which the Shiites and Kurds have patiently waited for. Nobody has to vote for the elections to be legitimate.
Posted by: Bulldog   2005-01-04 12:56:33 PM  

#7  SOME Sunnis have supported coalition forces, with intel tips, etc (some of which we've noted here) Some Sunni Arabs have given their lives, wearing the uniforms of the IP and ING. Rather more Sunni Arabs than Shias or Kurds, IIUC, since ING are usually, and IP always, assigned to their local area. While there seems to be widespread support for the insurgency among Sunni Arabs, im not sure it exceeds 50%. The rest are too scared to reign in the insurgents and their supporters. I for one, am not willing to judge the fears of people subject to terrorist violence every day, while sit at a keyboard in safety (more or less) thousands of miles away. It may be better for the election to go forward on time - but its no poetic justice for people to suffer for the deeds of those in the same group they are in.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2005-01-04 12:40:11 PM  

#6  The majority of the violence stems from the Sunni community. It's Sunni sons and brothers who are running round attacking election officials, beheading people and setting IEDs. If the Sunnis can't be bothered reining in their murderous young men, and subsequently feel too afraid to vote, I call that something resembling poetic justice. They sowed the sectarian whirlwind which engulfs their communities - in harsh contrast to the restraint and civilised behaviour of the vast majority of Shiites and Kurds. Their unwillingness to excercise their block vote doesn't earn them any sympathy from me.
Posted by: Bulldog   2005-01-04 12:25:57 PM  

#5  Im not sure its that the majority of Sunni Arabs dont WANT to vote. I saw a poll indicating interest in voting was HIGH, among Sunni Arabs(MSM hasnt highlighted that) The question is CAN they vote - will Iraqi Police and ING be willing to risk their lives to protect polling places, etc.

Im NOT saying the vote should be postponed - plenty of disadvantages to that as well - but it would be better if security was better for the vote. Im not sure if another couple of weeks would make that much difference, but then Im not privy to coalition military plans. If say, they really were on the verge of some big breakthrough, capturing Zarqawi, lets say, I could see a good case for delaying the elections a couple of weeks for that.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2005-01-04 12:05:17 PM  

#4  BAR is right. In Huntington's historical survey of the 3rd wave of democratization, groups that didn't participate in elections when held lost out.
Posted by: Sharon in NYC   2005-01-04 8:09:53 AM  

#3  Hazim is obviously worried about job security and is already pandering for the Sunni vote in the rematch 4 years hence.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-01-04 7:13:32 AM  

#2  Iraqi Defense Minister Hazim Al-Shaalan said yesterday he favored delaying elections beyond Jan. 30 if Sunni Muslims are not planning to take part.

Geez, what's the damned problem? If they don't take part, they don't get any of the benefits. That's that, now get over it.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2005-01-04 1:28:29 AM  

#1  What are they going to do? Blow people up and chop off some heads? Can't have that.

Put some panties on their heads.
Posted by: beer_me   2005-01-04 12:52:02 AM  

00:00