The Spoils Of War

Good question at the end----Do we-the US have a plan if 'democracy' does not happen"?--as measured by free elections?


http://www.sundayherald.com/46228

The Spoils Of War


Nov. 21, 2004

Iraq: We were told the invasion would bring democracy and peace. But the reality is that escalating violence will make meaningful elections impossible
By Westminster Editor James Cusick and Investigations Editor Neil Mackay......




Senior Iraqi politicians recently met in Dukan in Kurdistan for two days of crisis talks that could help deliver a strategy enabling them to claim the elections will be legitimate and credible. One of their key fears is that the Sunni minority will cut themselves adrift from the poll – if they haven’t already done so. Some Iraqi politicians – encouraged by their US masters – accept the reality of a widespread Sunni boycott and are pressing for the January deadline to be met, effectively cancelling the election in areas that have a majority Sunni population.

While a limited poll may be acceptable to Washington, it will not be acceptable to the UN. Secretary-general Kofi Annan continues to pledge full support for the January election process. But his advisers continue to deliver barely coded warnings of an inclusive, not exclusive, electoral process. But the White House may, as before, simply regard the UN as a voice to be sidelined. Bush said last week: “As the elections draw near, the desperation of the killers will grow and the violence could escalate.” He insisted that “democracy in Iraq would be a crushing blow to the forces of terror and the terrorists know it”.

Iraqis opposed to the occupation also know that to crush the elections would be a blow to the US – and the UK.

It would be a damaging blow to Prime Minister Tony Blair. He continues to lay his international credibility on the line by unquestioningly following the foreign policy of the US. At Lancaster House last week, where both Blair and the French president, Jacques Chirac, met to celebrate 100 years of the Entente Cordial, Blair said that on Iraq, both the UK and the French were working under UN resolution 1546. He said: “Both of us want to see a stable and democratic Iraq, and both of us will do what we can to ensure that happens.”

And what if it doesn’t happen?

21 November 2004

This was a fine article, but it discussed the issue in practical real-world terms. Bush has already demonstrated (and had validated on Nov 2) that reality is whatever he claims it to be. As long as a majority of the American people believe in Bush, the UN and all the other "obstructionists" can be dismissed as irrelevant.

Whether or not elections are held in January, in the U.S, Bush will be viewed as leading the fight against terrorists and for democracy. Meanwhile, the neocons will get at least part of what they wanted all along -- the U.S. military ensconced in Iraq and (for the most part) in control.

Fortunately or unfortunately, reality can be denied for only so long. If elections are a farce or not held, if the security situation continues to deteriorate, if the body bags keep coming home, if the poodle Tony Blair finds it necessary to get off Bush's lap, if enough Americans finally have had enough of this Iraq fiasco -- then Bush may finally be out of his "political capital."

It may not be possible to salvage Iraq, but the disaster perpetrated by Bush in that tragic country may ruin his presidency before his term is out and make it possible for a modicum of sanity to return to our government in 2008.