BAGHDAD -- Well, well. Things are certainly confusing here regarding the timing of the elections. The Allawi government is divided over the elections, with the defense minister saying the elections could be postponed and even President Ghazi al-Yawer saying the U.N. should look into the matter. Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's office is sending smoke signals that we all squint to interpret. However, Foreign Minister Hoshi Zebari, a Kurd, says elections must go on as scheduled.
[UPDATE 2:35:28 PM +0300 GMT: Well, Allawi said today in a press conference that the elections would go on as planned. I guess that settles it. ... Not.]
In all of this, the U.N. has said the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq has the authority to make the decision to change the election date. The IECI says it's a political decision -- it's the government's call, in other words. The Iraqi government, as I explained above, is divided and al-Yawer wants to pass the buck onto the U.N. ... and the game of electoral hot potato continues.
In all of this, the U.S. stands firm on the Jan. 30 date. And why not? It's not Americans will bear the brunt of the violence. And the ones who will -- the soldiers -- are pretty heavily armed. Not so for the luckless Iraqis who get caught in the violence while queuing up to vote.
Also, the Shi'a and the Kurds are standing firm on the date -- and again, why not? They're the ones who stand to gain the most from the elections, especially since their traditional oppressors, the Sunnis, will most likely not take part in large numbers.
So I can't begin to tell you what's going to happen. I've changed my mind on whether elections will be held on schedule twice now, from thinking the definitely won't be held, to thinking they will be held come hell or high water to -- now -- thinking, well, maybe. I really just don't know, and from the noises coming out of the Iraqi Government, they don't either.
In other news, Qasim Daoud, the Iraqi national security advisor, just said an operation to clear out Mosul will begin "soon." Since most of the Mosul embeds for my colleagues have been put off until Jan. 8, we should probably expect a major offensive up there somewhere between Jan. 10-15. I don't know how long it will last.
I'm supposed to go up there tomorrow, but I may not be able to blog it, depending on the connectivity.
are you able to elaborate re your footnote concerning operation to clear out mosul ?
Unfortunately, that’s all I know right now. Daoud said it on al-Arabiya in a press appearance, and I’m just piecing together what I’ve gotten from the public affairs officers up there. But, given the timing — and the Jan. 30 deadline — I’d expect some kind of operation that starts around Jan. 10-15 and lasts a week or so. I’ve heard — not yet confirmed — that residents of Mosul are fleeing, much like they did in Fallujah. That’s honestly all I know about it right now.
Postpone the elecions and the baathists have won. Do they not gain political clout doing so ? They have postponed the obviouse result at the polls so the baathists,wahabists celebrate their newly won power regroup and plan to postpone the next scheduled election….simple as that.
Say they get rescheduled for March.
The “freedom fighters” with increased “foreign aid support” continue on their “campaign trail” to build on past accomplishments.
Get it over and done with as this is only the first scheduled vote of many yet to be cast in 2005.
Let the majority vote. The Shia have only so much patience and to deny them now may get that hoped for Sunni/Shia civil war that Al Jazeera wanted to create for some time now.
Thanks chris - i am concerned. Some have predicted this (bojan for one) - and foresee the machine rolling on through further towns or cities as the resistance is displaced. Pretty much a nightmare in terms of human rights dont you think? The info coming out of F is very sorry indeed.
“I’ve heard — not yet confirmed — that residents of Mosul are fleeing, much like they did in Fallujah. ”
We dont yet know how many were left behind
and are now dead. My understanding is that the media are not allowed in without ID and a bunch of US military with them.
This entry gets a link on the Guardian’s Linklog. Fame at last! :)
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/
I think that the elections should be held on schedule. No compromises. If there’s a chance that they’ll “work” - (and I believe that there is a slight chance) - then the potential benefits are enormous, and these people have suffered so much for so long, they deserve that “long shot”.
On the other hand, if the elections FAIL, they should be given a chance to do so. In a very noisy, and public way. The people who started this mess need to be discredited loudly. So if they’re going to fail, I say, LET THEM. Let the slap in the face of Bush and his cronies be felt, and it’s echoes heard round the world, so that the propaganda that gives them support, is exposed for the lies of which it’s comprised.
Blair is saying that if the elections are postponed it would be a victory for the insurgents, while Bush has said pretty much the same thing. But Bush is a flip flopper so he could change his mind, but he is also stubborn and won’t admit mistakes.
Same as others above. If elections are postponeds, the Baathists are happy and maybe stop killing people for a while. Afterwards; whenever they want to postpone elections again, or anything else, they simply resume killing people.
What is happenimg to civilization? Jack
So the U.S. intends to repeat the bloodbath extensive destruction seen in Fallujah? It seems to be a lesson plan right out of the Saddam Hussein handbook of human rights violation and mass death (dare I say murder).
See
“Death in Fallujah rising, doctors say
Reuters
01/04/05 FALLUJAH — (IRIN) - “It was really distressing picking up dead bodies from destroyed homes, especially children. It is the most depressing situation I have ever been in since the war started,” Dr Rafa’ah al-Iyssaue, director of the main hospital in Fallujah city, some 60 km west of Baghdad, told IRIN.
According to al-Iyssaue, the hospital emergency team has recovered more than 700 bodies from rubble where houses and shops once stood, adding that more than 550 were women and children.”
http://207.44.245.159/article7614.htm
If the elections don’t happen, the insurgents are NOT going to take tea and congratulate themselves. They will accelerate their actions with newfound enthusiasm from their victory in stopping them. Both paths will be very violent and messy, but at least elections have a possible upside — delaying them can only let things deteriorate farther.
Same with Mosul at this point - what to do? Just let the insurgent thugs run it forever? There are no nice safe ways out of any of this. It’s all “which is a less horrible option” at this point.
I think Friedman nails it pretty well in his column:
http://nytimes.com/2005/01/06/opinion/06friedman.html
In a nutshell, the elections need to happen to change the current insurgent rallying cry from “evict the US occupation” to “bring down the elected Iraqi government”. If a halfway decent election takes place, the insurgents are then terrorizing Iraq and its elected governent, not the evil occupiers. Of course how the elected government will then deal with the problem is a bit thorny… as it will clearly still involve US troops. But it will help dilute their “cause” and propaganda. But yes, it will be messy.
chris WHY TELEGRAPH WHEN WE ARE GOING TO START AN OFFENSIVE? BABE ARE YOU THINKING? this can’t be good for our troops. please be more careful in the future.
Um, because the national security advisor said it would happen in a televised press conference on Arabiya? It’s not like I”m giving any inside information that the Iraqi government isn’t discussing openly in television interviews. Give me a little more credit.
Hi Tropical,
Anything Chris knows has been known by the insurgents for days or months. The leaders will long be gone from Mosul by the time the attack begins. Only the suicidal grunts and civilians will be there and will suffer immensely. The Fallujah assault hasn’t made a dent in the insurgency but it has destroyed the lives of over 300,000 civilians. How could it? The operation was advertised at least a month in advance by the very government conducting it. I expect the same will happen with Mosul. Except here, we are talking about ruining the livlihoods of over one million civilians. Is this what America has become? War sucks.
Just the arrogance of overwhelming firepower, I guess. The military commanders are much better at measuring military costs as compared to political costs, but that shouldn’t be surprising. They’re just doing the best they can to protect themselves.
But military control of an area doesn’t necessarily translate into political control, as is being demonstrated in Fallujah, Ramadi, Samarra, Mosul, and elsewhere. The Iraqi Intel chief put the number of insurgents at 200,000, but I think that might actually be low, if one counts the amount of people who are sympathetic to the resistance. I would expect continued defiance from the Sunni population no matter how much firepower is brought to bear.
Friedman’s column in today’s (1/5/05) NY Times is right on. The heart of it to me is the following quote:
“In short, we need these elections in Iraq to see if there really is a self-governing community there ready, and willing, to liberate itself - both from Iraq’s old regime and from us. The answer to this question is not self-evident. This was always a shot in the dark - but one that I would argue was morally and strategically worth trying.
Because if it is impossible for the peoples of even one Arab state to voluntarily organize themselves around a social contract for democratic life, then we are looking at dictators and kings ruling this region as far as the eye can see. And that will guarantee that this region will be a cauldron of oil-financed pathologies and terrorism for the rest of our lives.”
Good Luck, Iraq!
Loose lips do sink ships, but no in this case. To assault Mosul, an array of thousands of MNF troops, armaments and equipment have to move in and set up in the area around the city. Surprise is really not a factor, dispite the silly feints in Fallujah to suggest otherwise.
And, as in Fallujah, the insurgents will leave the city and create havoc elsewhere, as the MNF assaults the city and finds little resistance again. A handful of insurgents will be killed and captured while thousands of civilians will be slaughtered. The military will claim another great victory and a new Hollywood movie will be contemplated.
I can’t imagine what an “assault” on Mosul will reap. Can you imagine an assault on Phoenix or St. Louis? It’s too damn big and too populous. The answer may be to try and isolate certain areas I guess but even this can’t be done without further damaging our standing and creating more insurgent sympathizers. Some here may have followed the heartsickening slide in opinion of the 16 yr old blogger, A Star From Mosul.
An assault right now in Mosul will successfully kill, maim or otherwise disenfranchise the restive Sunni population there, marginalizing them from the vote. American now equates Sunni with “the enemy” so a gradual genocide campaign is being cunningly implemented under the guise of securing elections.