Two questions about the Iraqi elections
- How would a Sunni boycott invalidate the elections, exactly? Hell, I wish I'd known about this in '96 after it became obvious Bill Clinton was going to beat Bob Dole like a red-headed stepchild. All we Republicans would have had to do was sit home, not vote, and then rail about Clinton's illegitimacy for the next four years.
- Can we expect more caterwauling from Senatrix Boxer if the election outcomes aren't exactly as she'd have liked?
Comments
Logically, it doesn't invalidate the elections. We are not necessarily dealing with logic here, however.
Posted by: PE | January 28, 2005 08:54 AM
A Sunni boycott could also leave us with a government dominated by two groups, the Shia and the Kurds, both of whom have historic ties to Iran. So we may want the Sunnis represented as well for our own interests.
That said, to compare what is going on in Iraq right now to our elections is a bit silly. My polling place was not posted with death threats.
Posted by: PE | January 28, 2005 09:19 AM
I read any interesting comparison yesterday.
Suppose the Afrikaaners decided to boycott (and even threaten violence) during the 1994 South African elections -staying home in droves and losing big-time to the black majority: would the Dems have called that election a 'failure'?
After all, the Afrikaaners were a decided minority who had ruled South Africa without challenge for decades.
Not a perect analogy to be sure but an interesting one, IMO.
Posted by: mal | January 28, 2005 05:15 PM
I'm not sure who is calling the election a "failure" based on how much the Sunnis participate. Again, the test of this government will be how it holds up over time.
A big difference between Iraq and South Africa is that we didn't invade and we didn't have 150,000 of our troops occupying it. Americans want the kind of success that brings the kind of stability that will allow our troops to start coming home in the near future.
To me, it's a practical issue. Having the Sunni representatives included could lead to some kind of permanent peace. Not having them on board could mean that we'll be there a long time.
It sure isn't out of love for the Baathists.
Posted by: PE | January 28, 2005 05:33 PM
Reason for hope: Sistani. He could be Iraq's Mandela, a man that enjoys widespread support from his base but sees the need for reconsciliation to bring others to the table.
For a time, I thought that Allawi winning was best for Bush, but now I think that a victory for the Sistani party might be best. He is an old man but the word is that he doesn't have Khomeini like followers. (One never knows, of course.)
Posted by: PE | January 30, 2005 01:13 AM