Iraqi election produces some hope

Although it was certainly marred by violence -- 35-38 dead depending on which counts you believe -- the election in Iraq came off reasonably successfully, at least initially and on the surface. The Sunnis voted in numbers this time, and the two leading coalitions seem to be PM Maliki's State of Law Party and former interim PB Ayad Allawi's Iraqi National Alliance. Though both are Shia, they bill themselves as secular and non-sectarian. As I predicted in my run-up piece no coalition is likely to get enough votes to form a tgovernment, so there is likely to be a period of wheeling and dealing that could take up to several months before a government is formed. If that leads to instability, it could lead to more violence. Let's hope it's resolved with a minimum of bloodshed. Getting U.S. combat troops out on a timely basis could depend on it.

For more background, Marina Ottaway, head of Middle East studies at the Carnegie Endowment, who was very helpful to me in preparing my piece, provides helpful context. Carnegie has been monitoring the Iraqi media -- fiverse and surprisingly free-wheeling -- for onths now.

Iraqi elections encouraging in a preliminary way

It doesn't change the fact that invading Iraq was a huge mistake that killed thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis unnecessarily, only to create a regime that is more likely than not to be a de facto ally of, or at least not a buffer against Iran. But there was something almost inspiring about the willingness bordering on eagerness of most Iraqis to go to the polls Sunday and at least make an effort to bring a semblance of democratic governance to their country. Given that no party or faction is likely to get a majority or even a strong enough plurality to form a government quickly, it is likely to take months to form a government, there is likely to be a period of instability that will require forbearance that we might not have a right to expect. But we should hope that the Iraqis get through this and form something resembling a stable government if we want U.S. troops to leave on schedule -- or even, if certain factions end up being influential, ahead of schedule. I'm hoping for he best but prepared for something less.

Iraqi elections and U.S. withdrawal

The elections in Iraq have gotten very little attention until the last few days -- the military cares about Afghanistan and the media care about health care and the implications for elections -- the only thing in American life the media get really excited about, policy being pretty boring. But they'll be quite significant, given that they are unlikely to be decisive. It will probably take months for the Iraqis to form a government. Given that there's been serious violence -- at least 40 dead in the last couple of days -- instability is likely to lead to more violence, which could lead to civil war. I did a piece for the Register's Sunday Commentary section that tries to describe the stakes and the players. If I do say so, I haven't seen anything better, and I read most of what's out there in preparation. Hope for the best but don't necessarily expect it.

Trial balloons for a longer stay in Iraq?

I understand that the military is constantly making contingency plans for things that are most unlikely to happen. But the fact that the top military commander in Iraq, Gen. Ray Odierno, told the press that he had briefed top officials on Washington on contingency plans to keep U.S. combat troops in Iraq past the end-of-August deadline -- after which there will still be 50,000 troops but supposedly not combat troops -- has me a little concerned. Is he launching a trial balloon to see how much resistance there is to the idea because he rather thinks they just might keep combat troops in Iraq longer?

I've been doing some research for a piece to run March 7, the date of the Iraqi parliamentary election, on the political situation in Iraq. It's far from stable, and we're starting to see some ramping-up of violence as the day comes closer. The election commission has disqualified several parties and almost 500 individuals from eligibility to run, most of them Sunni. Remember, the Sunni ran things under Saddam and for a long time before that, and the Shia have grievances. It could take months to form a government after the election and instability is likely to be accompanied by increasing violence. That just might be the justification/excuse for U.S. combat troops to stay longer.

I hope not, but . . .

Iraq's elections: time to start pulling out

Iraq held provincial elections a little over a week ago, and while final results are not published yet, many of the signs and portents seem hopeful. The Iraqis mostly ran the elections and they were not marred by violence. The results suggest something of a turning-away from the kinds of extreme and sometimes violent Shia dispensation that marked, for example, Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army, and (perhaps) toward an almost-secular nationalism (though Dawa, the party of current prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, who did better than expected, is certainly rooted in Shia religiosity.

The major lesson, as this Register editorial explains, is that there is no solid reason to delay the beginning of serious U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq. There's certainly no guarantee that Iraq will become a model democracy, as some have fantasized, and sectarian violence is certainly a real possibility for the future (e.g., the Kurdish regions didn't vote this time around but Sunni Arab/Kurdish relations in Mosul, which did vote, are hardly warm and fuzzy). But Iraqis are increasingly taking hold of their own destiny, though they are more likely to muff important aspects than to effect a peaceful transition to a unified Iraqi state. But it's their country, not ours. The U.S. occupation was not an election issue precisely because all parties expect the U.S. to leave, so they're jostling for power in the post-occupation Iraq. It's about as normal as politics is likely to be in Iraq for a while. But the U.S. presence is likely to be more destabilizing than stabilizing. Bring them home!

Anthony Cordesman at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who is generally a reaslitic and informed observer, thinks the U.S. and some western European countries will have to continue giving aid and civil society-building assistance for a good while yet. Cordesman is worth reading, but I disagree. Iraq will never look like a model Western European state (even if that were the highest possible aspiration for excellence, which is dubious). It's always hard for parents (sometimes agonizing as a father of three might know) to let go and let their children become responsible adults, in part by being able to make mistakes and taking responsibility for the consequences. But for a child to become an adult it has to happen. Same for nations that fancy themselves in loco parentis to other countries.