February 11, 2005

Discussion on Fraudulent Iraqi Elections
• Sunni Leaders Declare Iraq Elections Illegitimate as Resistance Continues
• Why is the U.S. Saying Elections at Gunpoint are "Free"? - Transit Workers Discussion Group
• The Iraqi Ballot, Translated - Hawra Karama
• Civil War: A New Excuse for Continued Occupation? - Nicolas J. S. Davies, Online Journal
• Train Wreck of an Election - James Carroll, Boston Globe

In Congress
• Representative Kucinich Calls Iraq Elections a Farce
• House Resolution: "Plan to Begin the Immediate Withdrawal of Troops from Iraq"
• Senator Kennedy on Iraq Elections

Sunni Leaders Declare Iraq Elections Illegitimate as Resistance Continues

The Association of Muslim Scholars, the main organization of Sunni clerics in Iraq, declared Iraq's January 30 election illegitimate. "These elections lack legitimacy because a huge portion of the population boycotted and this tells us that the national assembly and the coming government will not have the legitimacy required for writing the constitution, or concluding security and trade agreements," the Association said in a statement from Baghdad.

The main demand of the Association has been a timeline for the withdrawal of the some 150,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. "We cannot participate in the drafting of a constitution written under military occupation," Association spokesman Mohammed Bashar al-Feidhi said. An Abu Dhabi TV/Zogby poll conducted two days before the election showed that about 82 per cent of Sunnis and 69 per cent of Shiites want the U.S. military to leave "either immediately or after an elected government is in place." The Bush administration has refused to even speculate on when troops will leave. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the United States would not comment about what she called "exit strategies."

The Iraqi election commission has not yet released any results or turnout figures. "Political sources say the ticket endorsed by the Shiite clergy was expected to win the largest share of the 275 National Assembly seats. Tickets led by Kurdish politicians and by [interim Prime Minister Ayad] Allawi also were running strong," the Associated Press reports.

In other news, resistance forces have renewed their attacks throughout Iraq. A number of bombings and mortar attacks resulted in the deaths of at least 36 people since the elections where held, news agencies report. At least eight people were killed in the so-called Sunni triangle and an oil pipeline sabotaged near the central city of Samarra. The pipeline serves domestic power stations in Baghdad and Beiji and does not affect exports, AP reports. Meanwhile, it is reported that the police chief of Mosul, Gen. Mohammed Ahmed al-Jubouri, threatened resistance fighters, giving them two weeks to hand in weapons or he would "wipe out any village" that gives them shelter.

In other related news, U.S. occupation troops killed four detainees and injured at least six others at a prison at Camp Baccu in British-controlled southern Iraq. U.S. authorities said the soldiers had used "lethal force" on the prisoners crowded into compounds, surrounded by razor wire, at Camp Bucca after failing to control the riot. They also admitted that no American soldiers had been seriously injured by stones thrown by the detainees and the incident had lasted just 45 minutes before the decision was taken to open fire.

Bakhtiar Amin, the Iraqi puppet government's human rights minister, said he had sent a delegation to the camp to investigate. He told reporters that if the investigation shows that there was no justification for the degree of force used, the soldiers should be tried.

Camp Bucca, near Umm Qasar, holds 5,300 prisoners — more than Abu Ghraib in Baghdad — some of whom have been detained for more than a year without trial. There have been repeated allegations of abuse at the prison including a report by British soldiers that on at least one occasion U.S. soldiers shot prisoners held in cages.

[TOP]

End the Occupation Now!

Why is the U.S. Saying Elections at Gunpoint are "Free"?

- Transit Workers Discussion Group -

On January 30, an election was held in occupied Iraq. The monopoly media all said that "for the first time in 50 years Iraq held free elections." Bush proclaimed it a "resounding success." New Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the election went "better than expected," while adding that "No, it's not a perfect election."

It is clear that the U.S. is attempting to equate the elections with democracy and use this to justify occupation. In his state of the Union speech, Bush did exactly that. Quoting an Iraqi women, brought by Bush for his speech and present in the audience, Bush said Hussein was a dictator who occupied Iraq for 38 years. That was the real occupation, he emphasized. Now, with elections, Iraq has democracy. The equation is clear: Hussein=Dictator=Occupation and Bush=Elections=Democracy.

Given the mounting resistance in Iraq since the elections and the growing mobilization in the U.S. for the March 19-20 days of action to End the Occupation Now! it is also clear that the majority of people in Iraq, the U.S., and worldwide have not been fooled. Far from it, Bush's equation once again demonstrates his failure. No doubt he will be the one left behind.

It is also useful to look into why the U.S. is so insistent on portraying elections that took place under occupation, at gunpoint, with curfews, closed borders, checkpoints, travel banned and with U.S. troops guarding polling places, as "free elections." Could it be Bush is preparing the American people to also accept such elections as "free and imperfect"? Are we supposed to accept that "free elections" mean only that some ballots are cast for more than one party competing for power, irrespective of how fraudulent the election is and whether it is conducted at gunpoint? In the U.S. set-up, in fact, "free elections" does mean no more than ballots cast for more than one party and it does mean fraud all down the line. No doubt this one reason the monopoly media had no difficulty using the term for Iraq.

In the U.S., elections are a means for the competing factions of the ruling class to contend and work out their conflicts, short of civil war. The content of "free" is mainly freedom for each faction to vie with the other for power. As regularly experienced in elections at all levels, they necessarily serve to divide the people and block them from having any say in deciding the direction of the country, matters of war and peace, ending crimes like torture, budgets, social programs, and so on.

At this time, it is also the case that the ruling circles themselves are talking about the dangers of civil war, as the conflicts within their ranks intensify and elections are unable to sort them out. The emphasis in the monopoly media that the country is "deeply divided," and once again presenting the south as the "base" of Bush reaction are a further reflection of the growing splits within the ruling circles and their effort to divide the people and pit them against each other.

There is a divide in the U.S>, but it is between the people and the government. The south, for example, has been in the forefront of many of the recent demonstrations, from those against election fraud to those opposing the war in Iraq. Across the country the stand of the majority to End the Occupation Now is being repeatedly expressed.

Americans like Iraqis, are united in opposing the war and all election fraud. Americans are rejecting the existing set-up as being undemocratic and unfair. There is a growing movement demanding elections that do represent the people and their solutions to the problems facing society and humanity as a whole.

The question then comes: Given that the ruling class cannot deliver "free and fair" elections, are they using Iraq in part as a means to impose the notion that elections under military dictate are "free?" Are we, too, supposed to get used to the idea that there will need to be troops in the streets and checkpoints, much as was seen Inauguration Day?

Iraq elections Illegal

While the media had no trouble reporting the elections in Iraq as "free elections," most workers could only wonder at what "free" could possibly mean given the reality in Iraq.

It is well known that the newly installed government will have no control over U.S. troops inside Iraq, the continued building of U.S. military bases in Iraq, no control over the endless deaths of civilians, mostly women and children, no control over torture by the U.S., no control over borders, airspace, oil extraction, reconstruction of schools and hospitals. The new government is a government subject to U.S. military occupation, with no sovereignty what so ever. Indeed, elections under occupation and controlled by the occupier are illegal and illegitimate under international law.

The resistance is growing stronger, as shown by the wide boycott of the elections as well as the continued attacks on U.S. troops. Daily conditions of life are growing worse. As one engineer from Iraq put it, "There is a resistance to occupation in Iraq. This resistance stems from the fact that our life has been, for the last 22 months, deteriorating day and night and we have not seen any improvement in our condition for the last 22 months, nor that anything has been reconstructed. The telephone system is bad, the electricity is worse, the security condition worse. A lot of people are saying why do I vote? What does the government do for me? They did absolutely nothing...The U.S. had 22 months occupation and they have not fixed a single thing in Iraq...We don't have anything and they tell us here it is democracy."

Iraqis, like Americans, are demanding free and fair elections where they determine the content. At the very least free elections for Iraq means first of all freedom from occupation and all foreign interference. For Iraqis and Americans alike it means as a start that the people and all of their collectives are free to fully participate and be the decision-makers, every step of the way — free to decide their program, choose their own candidates, to elect, be elected and have their votes actually decide the outcome. Fair means at least that every measure is taken to insure every collective and individual participates on an equal footing and has whatever is needed for this, including equality and respect for all languages and cultures.

One thing is certain, elections in both countries were not free and fair and the peoples just demand for such elections will continue.

[TOP]

The Iraqi Ballot, Translated

- Hawra Karama, January 31, 2005 -

I had the opportunity to participate in the long-awaited Iraqi elections this weekend. Contrary to popular belief, this was not the first time my opinion has mattered to the Iraqi state. It was actually the third. Saddam Hussein had asked us Iraqis in both 1995 and 2002 if we wanted him to be our leader. The question sounded rather silly, considering the amount of Iraqi, Iranian, and Kuwaiti blood on his hands. Nevertheless, in both referenda, Saddam's approval ratings exceeded 99 percent. That statistic could not have been accurate, could it? Did the Iraqis really want even more years of crushing tyranny, war with neighbors, and ethnic cleansing?

In retrospect, I could come up with dozens of theories on the shocking outcome of the two referenda. Maybe only Ba'athists participated in the polls. Maybe people were too afraid to say they didn't want Saddam. Maybe the chads of those who did cast a "no" vote were hanging. In any case, I shouldn't waste so much time analyzing the past. The bottom line is that there is no such thing as democracy under dictatorship. My time today is better spent taking advantage of democracy under foreign occupation.

I hesitated before voting for reasons familiar to anyone who follows the news. But then I thought of the disappointment on the faces of my American guests if I did not accept the democracy they brought me. I didn't want their feelings to be hurt. I didn't want them to think that the residents of the Cradle of Civilization are not civilized. So I mustered the courage to go to the voting site nearest my house in Baghdad.

Initially, I thought I was at the American embassy because there were so many American soldiers standing outside. I checked my registration slip. I did in fact have the correct address. So I took a deep breath and walked in. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that Iraqi authorities had requested American troops' presence because they needed help making Iraqi tea for the voters. Their desire was to make the democratic process feel as close to home as possible.

A young soldier from Texas served me a cup of Iraqi hospitality. Then I nervously proceeded toward the voting booth. My heart was racing, and tears flooded my eyes as I thought of the price that was paid to make this moment happen. On a personal level, my niece had suffered severe burns on her arms and legs when bombs shook Baghdad in March 2003. My backyard was converted into a parking spot for an American tank. More broadly, over a hundred thousand of my countrymen had to be killed, and many more had to be wounded and disabled. Many American families had to mourn the loss of their loved ones in the military. The environment was sentenced to suffer for the next several centuries. Politicians in the White House and Parliament had gone out of their way just to ensure that my cup of tea had the right amount of sugar while I expressed whom I thought should hold the magic wand to make all my agony go away.

I wiped my tears, pulled myself together, sipped the last drops in my cup, and went into the voting booth. By taking one quick glance at the ballot placed in front of me, I could immediately tell that this experience was going to be different from its 1995 and 2002 predecessors. On those two occasions, I was asked only one question about one tyrant. "Do you want Saddam Hussein to be your president? A) Yes. B) No."

This election, on the other hand, gave me a variety of choices on numerous issues. Behold the multitude of questions I was asked:

Do you prefer to be tortured by A) American soldiers or B) British soldiers? When occupying soldiers stop you in the street, would you rather be strip-searched A) with blindfold or B) without blindfold? When foreign soldiers enter your house in the middle of the night to arrest your husband and terrorize your kids, would you prefer that they A) knock or B) ring the doorbell? [This question seemed odd because I thought they knew we don't have electricity and therefore the doorbells don't work.] Which of the following CIA-paid Iraqis should represent you? [The list is too long to reprint here.] Do you want the foreign forces occupying your country to leave? A) No. [I imagine they had accidentally forgotten to print "Yes."] To make sure our voices were being fully heard, some of the questions were open ended. Voters were actually allowed to write in their opinions on a number of issues. Observe:

Which media outlet should hold the copyright to the pictures of your torture? The occupation has violated the sanctity of the holy sites in Najaf and Karbala and bombed many mosques in Baghdad and Falluja. Are there any other holy sites you believe the occupation has missed? Which American company do you believe should be awarded a monopoly on Iraq's oil? After reading all the questions, I did the same thing I'd done in 1995 and 2002. I left the ballot blank and walked out.

On my way out of the voting site, an American soldier handed me a sticker with the words "I voted" printed on it. He looked perplexed as I stuck it on his rifle and left.

[TOP]

Civil War: A New Excuse for Continued Occupation?

- Nicolas J. S. Davies, Online Journal -

February 5, 2005—More and more Americans regret that we ever started the war in Iraq. Many of the government and media executives who sold us this war in the first place are now admitting that it was a serious mistake and some, like Richard Perle, have brazenly acknowledged that it is an outright violation of international law. (The Guardian, 11/20/03) What few of them will concede is that we now have any choice but to "stay the course" or to "win," whatever that may mean and whatever horrors it may involve. They insist that the alternative is unthinkable, and assert that Iraq minus U.S. occupation would quickly descend into "civil war."

Like "Weapons of Mass Destruction," "Liberation," and "Spreading Democracy" before it, preventing this hypothetical conflict is the new imperative for carrying on with the real one. Is there any rational basis for this, or are we once again confronting "inherent, even unavoidable institutional myopia" that makes "options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy that is possible in official circles," as Gabriel Kolko put it so eloquently in Century of War?

One of the most insidious aspects of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, or of any hostile military occupation for that matter, is that it forces every citizen in the country under occupation to make the wrenching choice between collaboration and resistance. Although 70 percent of Iraqi civilian casualties are inflicted directly by U.S. forces, according to a recent Iraqi Health Ministry report (Miami Herald, 9/25/04)*, there are also daily acts of violence committed by Iraqis against other Iraqis. The question is whether these are essentially a by-product of our military occupation, or whether they are the expression of a latent competition for power between Sunni and Shia ethnic groups that would erupt into civil war if the occupation were to end now.

I have reviewed 113 such acts of violence described in the international press between the 1st and 25th of January. Of these, 55 were directed at the armed forces of the "interim government" (army, national guard, police or Ministry of Interior "special forces"), 25 were election-related, aimed at candidates, election workers or polling places, 16 targeted interim government officials, 12 were against local employees of the occupation forces, and the victims were not identified in the remaining five cases. Not one incident was reported as a case of straightforward ethnic violence. Even the bombing of a Shia mosque in Baghdad was clearly election-related, as one of the survivors noted that people in the neighborhood had just received threatening letters urging them not to vote.

At present, most active resistance to the occupation is from Sunni Iraqis, but this has not always been the case. After Shia militiamen from Sadr City in Baghdad set up a base in Najaf to protect the Shrine of the Imam Ali, they fought two fierce battles with U.S. forces in April and August 2004. Now safely back in Sadr City, they have undisputed control of a large sector of Baghdad with at least 2.5 million inhabitants. They have an undeclared truce with U.S. forces, whereby the militia refrain from attacking the Americans as long as they in turn stay out of the effectively independent urban territory. Sadrist literature condemns collaboration and "terrorism," but the militia has never clashed with Sunni resistance fighters and has given them vocal and physical support in Fallujah and elsewhere (The Taming of Sadr City, Asia Times, 1/11/05).

In 1922, it was the Shia who boycotted Iraq's first election, designed by the British to produce a Constituent Assembly that would support the British mandate. Since then, the history of Iraq has had more than its share of tragedy, but one thing that has never happened is a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. Many Sunnis were privileged under Ottoman rule, and others who had fought in the Sharifian forces with the British against the Turks formed the officer corps of the Iraqi Army and a new privileged class under King Faisal. The Shiite, however, were prominent in opposition parties during the monarchy and were well represented in the republic that was formed after the military coup of 1958.

The Shiite also occupied a majority of leadership positions in the Baath Party before it came to power in 1963, and continued to be represented at all levels in proportion to their numbers in the population and to hold a majority on the Revolutionary Command Council until the first Gulf War. When Iran invaded Iraq in 1982, its army was turned back by a mainly Shiite Iraqi force under a Shiite general. The Shiite then supplied 75 percent of the lower ranks throughout the war without a widespread mutiny in spite of intense Iranian propaganda appeals to their Shiite brothers to join their Islamic Revolution. The disastrous U.S.-inspired Shiite revolt in 1991 led to a reduction of their role in government, and the surviving leaders of the revolt now view their central mistake to have been their failure to involve Sunnis and Kurds in the uprising, which was politically motivated against the Hussein regime rather than ethnic in character. Shiite leaders today seem determined not to make a similar mistake, and they put together multi-ethnic slates of candidates for the election.

There is actually another split in Iraqi society that may be just as deep and significant as the Sunni-Shiite divide, and that is the one between secular and religious parties. In the later years of the Baath regime, Islamism became its principal rival ideology, commanding the allegiance of growing popular majorities in both ethnic groups. With the removal of the Baath regime, Islamists from Salafis to Sadrists now lead the opposition to U.S. occupation and are ready to take their share of power. They would be neither pro-American nor theocratic on the Iranian model, but the United States government is choosing to continue the war in the increasingly desperate hope that it can instead set up a pro-American "secular" government and build up local forces that will fight for it against Islamists and other opponents.

The greatest danger in Iraq today is that the United States will be partially successful in building and arming such a force, and that, with U.S. support, this force will continue to wage war against its own people, gradually destroying more of the country and continuing the "decomposition" of Iraqi society that former French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin correctly predicted would occur without a true restoration of sovereignty in August 2003.

One feature of this decomposition has been the destruction of the educational system of Iraq, once the most extensive in the Arab world. Designating schools as polling places for the election ensured the demolition of dozens of them by the resistance, but even more disturbing has been the assassination of about 300 Iraqi academics, and the emigration of at least 2,000 others, since the occupation began (USA Today, 1/17/05). The murdered academics are from every ethnic group and political persuasion, and exile groups such as Dr. Iyad Allawi's have been implicated in some of these murders. Stephen Grey, a journalist from New Zealand, investigated the murder of Professor Abdullatif Ali al-Mayah of Baghdad University on January 19, 2004, and was told by a senior Iraqi police officer, "There are political parties in this city who are systematically killing people. They are politicians that are backed by the Americans and who arrived in Iraq with a list of their enemies. I've seen these lists. They are killing people one by one" (New Statesman, 3/15/04).

Iraqis call Dr. Allawi "Saddam without the mustache" and there is a persistent story that he personally summarily executed six captured resistance fighters soon after he took office. This story was recently "confirmed" by a U.S. official in a conversation with a former Jordanian government minister, according to Jon Lee Anderson of The New Yorker, who has also interviewed another witness to the alleged executions (Sydney Morning Herald, 1/19/05). Whether the story is true or not, most Iraqis and other Arabs are quite ready to believe that Allawi could behave with such brutality, and it is hardly surprising that they view George W. Bush's speeches about liberty and tyranny as rank hypocrisy.

The Kurds, the third major ethnic group, are heavily represented in the armed forces that have been recruited and trained by the Americans, and their part in the destruction of Fallujah has led to bloody reprisals against the Kurdish population in Mosul. A likely fallback plan for U.S. forces would be a retreat to permanent bases in South Kurdistan, from where they could continue attacks against other parts of the country and the region. However, such a course would only perpetuate the self-destructive pattern of U.S. policy in the region, gaining military bases and isolated allies while generating more widespread popular hostility to U.S. interests. The only legitimate course to a resolution of this crisis remains, as it has always been, a full restoration of Iraqi sovereignty with U.N. assistance and a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces.

Americans have been led to believe that the persistent failures of U.S. military ventures in the "Third World" have been attributable to a lack of commitment of either money, blood or political will, and that, given sufficient investment of these commodities, there are no limits to American power. Fortunately or unfortunately, this is myth, not history. In reality, it is in the countries where the United States has made its most extensive commitments that it has experienced its greatest failures, from China in the 1940s to Korea, Lebanon (twice), Cuba, Vietnam, Angola, Iran, Somalia and now Iraq. In each case, policy has been formulated around myths of democracy and American power in place of accurate analyses of resources and interests relative to the history, politics and culture of the country in question, even though such analyses were always readily available. The result has been that popular movements in all these countries have frustrated American ambitions and won military and political victories in spite of huge economic and military imbalances in favor of the United States (Confronting the Third World, Gabriel Kolko, 1988). The only exceptions to this record of failure during the past half-century have been in small countries in the Caribbean basin that already had quasi-colonial relationships with the United States.

If institutional myopia continues to blind our leaders to the clear lessons of our own history, it is more important than ever that we learn these lessons for ourselves, teach them to our children and grandchildren, and engage our fellow Americans in serious conversations about our country's history and foreign policy.

(* The report noted that the majority of these casualties are the result of aerial bombardment. It is important to understand that the "precision-guided" Paveway Mark 82 500 lb. bombs that are the weapon of choice for U.S. air forces in Iraq strike within 40 feet of their target only 80-85 percent of the time, and that they are in any case designed to inflict 50 percent casualties over a radius of 50 yards, an area the size of one and a half football fields.)

[TOP]

Train Wreck of an Election

- James Carroll, Boston Globe -

In thinking about the election in Iraq, my mind keeps jumping back to last week's train wreck in California. A deranged man, intending suicide, drove his Jeep Cherokee onto the railroad tracks, where it got stuck. The onrushing train drew near. The man suddenly left his vehicle and leapt out of the way. He watched as the train crashed into his SUV, derailed, jackknifed, and hit another train. Railroad cars crumbled. Eleven people were killed and nearly 200 were injured, some gravely. The deranged man was arrested. Whatever troubles had made him suicidal in the first place paled in comparison to the trouble he has now.

Iraq is a train wreck. The man who caused it is not in trouble. Tomorrow night he will give his State of the Union speech, and the Washington establishment will applaud him. Tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead. More than 1,400 Americans are dead. An Arab nation is humiliated. Islamic hatred of the West is ignited. The American military is emasculated. Lies define the foreign policy of the United States. On all sides of Operation Iraqi Freedom, there is wreckage. In the center, there are the dead, the maimed, the displaced -- those who will be the ghosts of this war for the rest of their days. All for what?

Tomorrow night, like a boy in a bubble, George W. Bush will tell the world it was for "freedom." He will claim the Iraqi election as a stamp of legitimacy for his policy, and many people will affirm it as such. Even critics of the war will mute their objections in response to the image of millions of Iraqis going to polling places, as if that act undoes the Bush catastrophe.

There is only one way in which the grand claims made by Washington for the weekend voting will be true -- and that is if the elections empower an Iraqi government that moves quickly to repudiate Washington. The only meaning "freedom" can have in Iraq right now is freedom from the US occupation, which is the ground of disorder. But such an outcome of the elections is not likely. The chaos of a destroyed society leaves every new instrument of governance dependent on the American force, even as the American force shows itself incapable of defending against, much less defeating, the suicide legions. The irony is exquisite. The worse the violence gets, the longer the Americans will claim the right to stay. In that way, the ever more emboldened -- and brutal -- "insurgents" do Bush's work for him by making it extremely difficult for an authentic Iraqi source of order to emerge. Likewise the elections, which, as universally predicted, have now ratified the country's deadly factionalism.

Full blown civil war, if it comes to that, will serve Bush's purpose, too. All the better if Syria and Iran leap into the fray. In such extremity, America's occupation of Iraq will be declared legitimate. America's city-smashing tactics, already displayed in Fallujah, will seem necessary.

Further "regime change" will follow. America's ad hoc Middle East bases, meanwhile, will have become permanent. Iraq will have become America's client state in the world's great oil preserve. Bush's disastrous and immoral war policy will have "succeeded," even though no war will have been won. The region's war will be eternal, forever justifying America's presence.

Bush's callow hubris will be celebrated as genius. Congress will give the military machine everything it needs to roll on to more "elections." These outcomes, of course, presume the ongoing deaths of tens of thousands more men, women, and children. And American soldiers.

Something else about that California train wreck strikes me. As news reports suggested, so many passengers were killed and injured because the locomotive was pushing the train from behind, which put the lightweight passenger coaches vulnerably in front. If, instead, the heavy, track-clearing locomotive had been leading and had hit the Jeep, it could have pushed the vehicle aside. The jack-knifing and derailment would not have occurred. The American war machine is like a train running in "push-mode," with the engineer safely back away from danger. In the train wreck of Iraq, it is passengers who have borne the brunt. The man with his hand on the throttle couldn't be more securely removed from the terrible consequences of his locomotion. Thus, Bush is like the man who caused the wreck, and like the man who was protected from it. Deranged. Detached. Alive and well in the bubble he calls "freedom," receiving applause.

[TOP]

Representative Kucinich Calls Iraq Elections a Farce

On January 26, 2005, the office of Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio released the following press release, titled, Kucinich: Iraq Elections Will Be A Farce; Closest International Election Monitors Will Get Will Be Amman, Jordan.

* * *

Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) today said that Iraqi elections, to be held on Sunday, will be a farce. In a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and John Negroponte, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, Kucinich cites a total absence of international election monitors in Iraq for Sunday's (January 30th) elections. The closest international monitors will get to Iraq on Sunday will be Amman, Jordan.

In the letter, sent today, Kucinich states,

"It is clear, in just five days before the Iraqi elections are to be held, that it will be impossible to conclude anything about the extent to which corruption, voter intimidation or outright fraud will mar the results. The exercise will regrettably be a farce. The results will have no recognized legitimacy whatsoever, and surely do not merit association with the United States' notions of democracy.

"The elections will not yield certifiable results due to the pitifully small number of election observers, and the total absence of international election observers from the process. Indeed, according to the Washington Post, this is the first transitional election in the past two decades that will not have international election observers touring polling stations. As you know, international monitors have independently observed and evaluated elections throughout the world and have helped to point out when they are fraudulent and when they are legitimate."

In previous transitional elections across the world, the international community has sent teams of observers to polling sites. International observers have observed recent transitional elections in Nigeria in 1999, Haiti in 1990, East Timor in 2001-2002, and most recently in the second runoff election in the Ukraine.

No international body will have election monitors in Iraq on Sunday. The International Mission for Iraqi Elections, led by Canada's chief electoral officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, and comprised of less than two dozen election experts from Australia, Bangladesh, Britain, Canada, Ghana, Hungary, Indonesia, Mexico, Panama and Yemen, will monitor the elections, not in Iraq, but instead operate from Amman, Jordan.

"I hope the Administration does not engage in wishful thinking that this farce of an election can beget anything other than farce. What a disservice we do to Iraqis who risk danger to cast their votes or run for office in this irredeemable formality. And what distortion of real democracy is being done in America's name: It will surely discredit the United States in the eyes of the world," Kucinich concludes in his letter.

[TOP]

House Resolution

"Plan to Begin the Immediate Withdrawal of Troops from Iraq"

On January 26, Representative Lynn Woolsey of California led a group of 24 Representatives in introducing a resolution calling on President George W. Bush to implement a plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. Reflecting the broad rejection of the war by the majority of Americans and rejection of the lies that justified it, the Resolution 35 speaks to the absence of weapons of mass destruction and the failure of the U.S. to stop the resistance. It also expresses the growing concern among the ruling circles about the continuing decline in U.S standing worldwide and the illegitimacy of the Bush government.

Woolsey, in presenting the resolution, said, "The U.S. military presence in Iraq is nothing short of stifling to the prospect of democracy. How can democracy possibly take route if forced upon the Iraqi people by the barrel of the gun?"

While speaking to the authorization for use of force passed overwhelmingly by Congress in October, 2002, the Resolution does not call for it to be rescinded nor does it call on Congress to assert its Constitutional authority concerning waging war and treatment of prisoners. The Resolution is limited to "expressing the sense of Congress," which means that even if passed, it is non-binding.

The following Representatives joined Woolsey in presenting the Resolution: Reps. Xavier Becerra, John Conyers, Danny Davis, Lane Evans, Sam Farr, Raul Grijalva, Maurice Hinchey, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Dennis Kucinich, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Barbara Lee, John Lewis, Jim McDermott, Cynthia McKinney, Gwen Moore, Grace Napolitano, Major Owens, Ed Pastor, Charlie Rangel, Jan Schakowsky, Jose Serrano, Pete Stark, Maxine Waters, and Diane Watson.

We reprint Resolution 35 below.

* * *

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should develop and implement a plan to begin the immediate withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq.

Whereas the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) was passed by Congress on October 11, 2002, and signed into law by the President on October 16, 2002;

Whereas Public Law 107-243 specifically cited Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction and its harboring of members of the al Qaida terrorist organization as the foundation for the use of United States military force against Iraq;

Whereas the Iraq Survey Group, led by American weapons inspector David Kay, was enlisted by the President to search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq;

Whereas on October 2, 2003, David Kay wrote, in a statement prepared for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Committee on Appropriations (Subcommittee on Defense), and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that the Iraq Survey Group found no evidence that Iraq had stockpiled unconventional weapons before the United States-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003;

Whereas on October 6, 2004, Charles Duelfer, whom the President chose to complete the work of the Iraq Survey Group, stated that the 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent United Nations inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and that the Iraq Survey Group found no evidence of concerted efforts by Iraq to restart an illicit weapons program;

Whereas on January 12, 2005, the President officially declared an end to the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq;

Whereas more than 1,350 members of the United States Armed Forces have been killed as part of the ongoing combat operations in Iraq;

Whereas the Department of Defense has estimated that at least 10,300 members of the Armed Forces have been wounded as part of the ongoing combat operations in Iraq;

Whereas various estimates place the number of unarmed, innocent Iraqi civilians killed as part of the ongoing combat operations in Iraq between 15,000 to 17,000 individuals, and possibly much higher;

Whereas more than $230,000,000,000 has been appropriated by Congress to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly $160,000,000,000 of which has been allocated for military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq;

Whereas in 2005 the President is expected to request Congress to appropriate as much as $80,000,000,000 in additional funds for military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and elsewhere;

Whereas the President's former Chief Economic Adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, was publicly criticized by high-ranking members of the Administration for suggesting that the war in Iraq might cost as much as $100,000,000,000 to $200,000,000,000;

Whereas the legitimacy of the January 30, 2005, elections in Iraq has been severely undermined by daily attacks by Iraqi insurgents, by the decision to hold such an election before the country is safe enough to ensure widespread participation, and by the fact that an occupying military force is present within the country;

Whereas dozens of Iraqi election workers have been killed, and hundreds more have quit their posts out of fear of being killed;

Whereas Iraqi insurgent forces remain capable of killing United States troops and Iraqi police and soldiers throughout Iraq almost daily;

Whereas the very presence of 150,000 Americans in Iraq has become a rallying point for dissatisfied people in the Arab world, and has both intensified the rage of the extremist Muslim terrorists and also ignited civil hostilities in Iraq that have made United States troops and Iraqi civilians substantially less safe;

Whereas the removal of the United States military from Iraq will help diminish one of the major causes of Iraq's growing insurgency;

Whereas the best way to truly support members of the United States Armed Forces stationed in Iraq is to remove them from harm's way; and

Whereas the time has come to begin a withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq before the United States becomes further embroiled in an unnecessary and dangerous international conflict: Now, therefore be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the President should—

(1) develop and implement a plan to begin the immediate withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;

(2) develop and implement a plan for reconstructing Iraq's civil and economic infrastructure;

(3) convene an emergency meeting of Iraq's leadership, Iraq's neighbors, the United Nations, and the Arab League to create an international peacekeeping force in Iraq and to replace United States Armed Forces in Iraq with Iraqi police and Iraqi National Guard forces to ensure Iraq's security; and

(4) take all steps necessary to provide the Iraqi people with the opportunity to completely control their internal affairs.

[TOP]

Senator Kennedy on Iraq Elections

Senator Edward M. Kennedy spoke at University of Massachusetts (UMass) Boston on February 4, 2005. We provide excerpts below from his remarks, "On America's Future In Iraq: Looking Past the Elections Toward a Free Iraq.

* * *

"We were all moved by the bravery of the Iraqi people who voted in Sunday's election, and we honor the courageous men and women of our armed forces who continue to risk their lives for a better future for the Iraqi people.

But, we've been here before. As a headline in the New York Times in 1967 stated about an election in Vietnam: `U.S. Encouraged By Vietnam Vote: Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror.'

Let's not be lulled again. Let's use the elections in Iraq as an opportunity for a fresh and honest approach. Let's start by having an exit strategy.

The election is a step forward, but it is not a mandate for the Administration's current policy. It is not a cure for the violence and resentment caused by the perception of the American occupation.

But the election does provide an opening, if we are wise enough to seize it, to demonstrate to the Iraqi people that we have no long-term designs on their country.

President Bush shies away from such a strategy. But in fact, it's exactly what he called for in 1999, when he was Governor of Texas and speaking about the war in Kosovo. He said: `Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.'

President Bush should follow his own advice. A coherent exit strategy is the best way to spread freedom in Iraq and lay the groundwork for the honorable homecoming of our forces.

The first step is to confront and admit our own mistakes. Americans are rightly concerned about why our soldiers are there, when they will come home, and how our policy could have gone so wrong.

No matter how many times the Administration denies it, there is no question they misled the nation and led us into a quagmire in Iraq. President Bush rushed to war on the basis of trumped-up intelligence and a reckless argument that Iraq was a critical arena in the war on terror, that somehow it was more important to start a war with Iraq than to finish the war in Afghanistan or capture Osama bin Laden, and that somehow the danger was so urgent that U.N. weapons inspectors could not be allowed to complete their search for weapons of mass destruction.

The weapons of mass destruction weren't there, but today 150,000 Americans are. [...]

"Too many Iraqi people do not believe that America intends no long-term military presence in their country. Our reluctance to make that clear has fueled suspicions among Iraqis that our motives are not pure, that we want their oil, and that we will never leave. As long as our presence seems ongoing, America's commitment to their democracy sounds unconvincing.

Other indications of anti-American sentiment are clear. CDs with photographs of the insurgents are spread across the country. Songs glorify combatants. Poems written decades ago during the British occupation after World War I are popular again.

We have the finest military in the world. But we can't defeat the insurgents militarily if we don't effectively address the political context in which the insurgency flourishes. Our military and the insurgents are fighting for the same thing - the hearts and minds of the people - and it is a battle we are not winning.

The goal of our military presence should be to allow the creation of a legitimate, functioning Iraqi government, not to dictate it and not to micromanage it.

Creating a full-fledged democracy won't happen overnight. It may take years for the Iraqis to finish the job. But, the process cannot begin in earnest until Iraqis have full ownership of the process. Our continued, overwhelming presence only delays it.

If we want Iraq to develop a stable, democratic government, America must assist - not control - the newly established government.

Unless Iraqis have a genuine sense that their leaders are not our puppets, the election cannot be the turning point the Administration hopes.

To enhance its legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqi people, the new Iraqi Government should begin to disengage politically from America, and we from them.

The reality is that the Bush Administration has pulled the strings in Iraq, and the Iraqi people know it. We picked the date for the transfer of sovereignty. We supported former CIA operative Iyad Allawi to lead the Interim Government. We wrote the laws that now govern Iraq.

It is time to recognize that there is only one choice. America must give Iraq back to the Iraqi people.

We need to let the Iraqi people make their own decisions, reach their own consensus, and govern their own country.

We need to rethink the Pottery Barn rule. America cannot forever be the potter that sculpts Iraq's future. President Bush broke Iraq, but if we want Iraq to be fixed, the Iraqis must feel that they, not we, own it.

The Iraqi people are obviously facing historic issues in establishing a government, deciding the role of Islam, and protecting minority rights.

The entire international community has a clear interest in a strong, tolerant and pluralistic Iraq, free from chaos and civil war.

The United Nations, with our support, should take the lead in providing assistance and advice on establishing a system of government and drafting a constitution.

For freedom and democracy to take root, the Iraqis need a clear signal that America has a genuine exit strategy.

At least 12,000 American troops and probably more can and should leave at once, to send a strong immediate signal about our intentions and to ease the pervasive sense of occupation. Our military presence in Iraq has increased by 19,000 since November. The large majority of those troops were added to guarantee security for the election, and there is no reason they should not come home as soon as possible. Even Secretary Wolfowitz, the architect of the war, told the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday that our military presence can `come down by about 15,000.' Commanders have said they hope to withdraw about 15,000 troops sometime this spring or summer.

For the longer term, President Bush should also announce his intention to negotiate with the new Iraqi government for a drawdown of American combat forces.

As Major General William Nash, who commanded the multi-national force in Bosnia, said in November, a substantial reduction in our forces following the Iraqi election `would be a wise and judicious move' to demonstrate that we are leaving and `the absence of targets will go a long way in decreasing the violence.'

America's goal - not a hard and fast time-table but a realistic goal - should be to complete our military drawdown as early as possible in 2006. That goal is consistent with the timeline for the election of the permanent Iraqi government that will take place at the end of this year. It is also consistent with the view of Iraq's interim Interior Minister, who recently said, `I think we will not need the multi-national foreign forces in this country within 18 months. I think we will be able to depend on ourselves.'

President Bush cannot avoid this issue. The Security Council Resolution authorizing our military presence in Iraq can be reviewed at any time at the request of the Iraqi Government, and it calls for a review in June. The U.N. authorization for our military presence ends with the election of a permanent Iraqi government at the end of this year. The world will be our judge.

Obviously, while American troops are drawing down, we must clearly be prepared to oppose any external intervention in Iraq or the large-scale revenge killing of any group. We should begin now to conduct serious regional diplomacy with the Arab League and Iraq's neighbors to underscore this point. Clearly, we will need to maintain troops on bases outside Iraq but in the region."