Iraqi elections are coming too soon

By Jon Heit

By Brandon Dow

Contributing Writer

Now that the American presidential election is over, it's time to abandon the right wing versus left wing free-for-all showdown. In simple terms, it means we must replace the last 21 months of politically-motivated partial assumptions with sensible open-mindedness.

How do we do this, you ask?

First, if we were to rely strictly on Bush administration sound-bytes, video clips and press releases, then our ability to rationalize would be forever destroyed. The current administration continues to paint a picture of triumph in Iraq with only minor setbacks. And, in the face of dissenting opinions, the administration fires back with language of liberation.

When asked whether we should delay the upcoming Iraqi elections on Jan. 30, the administration regurgitates the same typical sweet words: stay the course.

Part of this sensible open-mindedness is the ability to come to realistic terms with the real war in Iraq. Instead, nearly two years after toppling Baghdad and declaring "mission accomplished," it is painfully evident that Iraq is far from liberation.

U.S. forces are experiencing increasingly dreadful violence -- daily car bombings, be-headings, and relentless missile attacks -- all of which have left almost 1,400 U.S. casualties and 10,000 wounded as of Jan. 7, according to the Associated Press.

And let's not forget the impact on the Iraqi people. There are nearly 150 slain Iraqi police officials, rampant images of tortured prisoners, innumerable civilian fatalities, and a realization that even the "green zone" (the most fortified area in Iraq) is not exempt from vicious assaults. Indeed, last week, Baghdad Governor Ali al-Haidari was assassinated near the sizeable American compound in central Baghdad.

As The Economist notes, we face an "insurgency that has spread to more than two dozen cities and towns," severely restraining our reconstruction efforts and training of Iraqi officers. Also, as Thomas Friedman emphasizes, a civil war is rapidly developing as Sunni extremists slaughter any Iraqis that show the slightest U.S. backing.

Amidst this chaos, the Iraqi interim government and Coalition forces will hold the first national elections since 1958 in just two short weeks. As you can see, there might be a problem.

And for not-so-obvious reasons, difficulties will arise when the proportional system of representation will be implemented, giving the 60 percent of Iraqi Shiite majority control over the Sunni minority.

A Time article in November observed that due to the absence of strong moderate voices within the Sunni community, "the insurgents have been able to consolidate power by portraying themselves as defenders of Sunni interests and threatening or killing those viewed as cooperating with the U.S." Put simply, extremists are drawing upon a vulnerable religious group, and consequently "may command the support of as many as 20,000 Sunnis."

Moderate Sunni Muslims have no place to turn and fear being left behind. Their provinces are fear-laden rebel strongholds, and many are calling for an election boycott (only 20 percent intend to vote).

If that's not enough, Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz, the No. 2 commander of U.S. ground forces in Iraq, declared last week that over 50 percent of Iraqis will not be able to vote safely.

Despite this information, Bush again announced that we would stay the course. This, unfortunately, seems to be the administration's logic. They believe the election represents a transfer of real power to the Iraqis, when in fact such a transfer is not realistic.

While it indicates a belief of glorious harmony, the reality is that the insurgency is strong and getting stronger. The U.S. influence in Iraq is swiftly dwindling, and as such, the Bush team must adopt a practical outlook. This means that we must abandon the naive hope of cultivating an ideal Western democracy, and instead do all that we can to hand over a stable and functional Iraq.

As Sunni politician Adnan Pachachi wrote last week in the Washington Post, legitimacy is the most important factor in the election. Without sufficient security and total participation, the new government and constitution will be seen as illegitimate by many of Iraq's citizens.

Underrepresented groups amount to potential insurgent recruits and assured sources of conflict. Indeed, several U.S., Iraq, and UN officials are warning of a post-election full-scale civil war between the Shiites and Sunnis. However, delaying the elections for a few months would allow us to aggressively address the security situation, and therein, diplomatically push for an all-inclusive Iraqi vote.

In all, the situation in Iraq demands realism, not "staying the course." Staying the course involves naivety, stubbornness, and the continued effort of the current administration to mislead the American public. Delaying the elections would demonstrate an understanding that we could never liberate Iraq -- only Iraq can liberate Iraq. Our goal should be to provide the conditions for them to freely do so.

* Brandon Dow is a senior. by Oscar and Manny Silva for the santa claraFaith can be put on hold for self-inquiry Keep the ethics decorousJon Heit Have you ever walked by Chalk Talk, that chalkboard posing ethical questions each week, and scratched your head while reading some of the comments?

Well, fortunately for me, it was my job last quarter to come up with a question each week, post it, and edit anything that was too obscene.

The political science major in me couldn't resist stacking first Chalk Talk with political questions in an election season. Is it irresponsible not to vote in the November elections? Does it matter if the United States violated international law by invading Iraq? Should women be drafted into the military?

The response to these questions was, honestly, a little surprising in that the comments developed into an intelligent dialogue. A variety of opinions and positions arose, articulate and thought through. Unfortunately, the trend was short-lived.

As the elections drew closer, dialogue gave way to banter reminiscent of the old playground. Given the charged political climate at the time, this wasn't particularly surprising. Then came the heart of midterm season and it all went downhill from there.

With intellects devoted to cramming and studying, crude drawings and random comments conquered the board. The rigors of trying to stay on top of a paper, an exam, or both each week left only brain discharge for Chalk Talk.

I admit I was annoyed. I enjoyed reading interesting comments and was perturbed to find instead mostly bizarre shapes and incoherent thoughts. Thinking about it now, however, there might be something more important at play here: Life at Santa Clara is often tightly bound inside the bubble.

With the chance to write my first column for the quarter, the craziness of the first few days left me wanting a topic that I could write quickly and easily -- maybe even rumple a few feathers in the process.

The hectic schedule and stress of life in the Santa Clara bubble held my focus captive. It can be so easy to shield myself from the rest of the world as I worry about registration, ecampus not working, somehow finishing everything that's due for tomorrow's class. It's a seductive mindset, one that should be resisted.

And this is where you come in. Don't be seduced. Give ethical issues and concerns more consideration than just writing an obscenity on a chalkboard.

* Jon Heit's column appears once a month. He can be reached at jtheit@scu.edu.