Editorial on Iraq Election-- United Arab Emirates paper

http://www.godubai.com/gulftoday/article.asp?AID=31&Section=Editorial#


Crafting the future

TODAY'S Iraq election is historic. It is unlike the polls under Saddam Hussein when he won 100 per cent of the votes. This time the turnout would be low because of insurgency, but the exercise in democracy, even if it is skewed, is indeed a turning point in Iraq's turbulent history.

The election is seen as an attempt to impose democracy from outside. It is difficult to sustain such an institution because balloting should come from the heart and not through the barrel of the gun.

<snip>

The reality is that Washington is not driven by noble intentions in bringing democracy. It toppled Saddam as scripted by the neo-conservative agenda to spread American influence in the region and strengthen Israel. The means that President George W. Bush used were illegal, deceptive and morally unacceptable. That is the tragedy the Iraqis are facing as they cast the votes in the backdrop of death and destruction wrought by the US policy.

A legitimate government could have been formed without war and occupation. Enduring freedom can be achieved by winning the minds of the people whose hopes are moulded without outside meddling. What we see now is an attempt at democracy being delivered at a heavy price. If the march to democracy had been under normal circumstances, it would be an occasion to rejoice. True home-grown democracy would invigorate civil institutions and strengthen the rule of law. But today's election, which the insurgents vowed to disrupt, is held in a sealed country.

There are fears of a post-election civil war triggering large-scale internecine conflict among various sectarian and ethnic groups. The US-sponsored experiment in democracy, held in an atmosphere of intimidation, is heavily marred by the war of attrition fought between the guerrillas and the US-led occupation forces. Such violence distorts balloting because of the fear psychosis. About 14 million Iraqis are eligible to vote, and we need to see how many voted. In democracy numbers are important.

<snip>

related to it to be an honest one

:kick:

is what Bush used on the American electorate and to invade Iraq.

I often wander how the American people can tolerate us entering into a country based on (non)existence of WMD's and end up patting themselves on the back because some voters turned out on election day
in Iraq. Critical thinking is a skill evidently not utilized by Republicans.

This one is more even-handed than most of the editorials on the Iraqi election coming from Middle East papers.


Braving the odds in Iraq to make history - a process that must be taken further

Monday, January 31, 2005

Editorial

Iraqis braved a wave of savage terrorism on Sunday to cast ballots in their country's historic democratic elections, and dozens of them paid with their life for the opportunity to vote. The absurdity of the violence - especially that stemming from the Al-Qaeda-linked Islamist extremist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - is matched only by its tragedy. In particular, Zarqawi's "war against democracy" only distorts the tenets of Islam and makes a mockery of his own warped "principles." His agenda appears to be only one of hate and murder with nothing constructive to offer in the aftermath of the wanton destruction and loss of life for which he is responsible.

Was it all worth it - the elections, the effort, the financial cost, the human sacrifice? We hope so, but the ultimate test of the value of the sacrifice will be whether the months ahead will see recognition on the part of the country's Shiites and Kurds, principally, that Sunnis were mostly not part of Sunday's election process. Whatever the reasons were for a significant Sunni absence, the fact remains that they are still Iraqis and that the outcome of Sunday's vote is not 100 percent legitimate without them.


For this reason, the results of the election are nothing conclusive, despite their historic status and despite the process being the first important step in what will hopefully be a new Iraq that has shaken off the yoke of tyranny. For this promise to be realized, however, the country's majority Shiites - who will more than likely emerge over the course of this week as holding the reins of power for the first time since modern Iraq was created in 1921 - and vitally, as the occupying power, the United States, must safeguard the Sunnis and their legitimate interests, and must guarantee a future role for them in the state.

This is crucial if further, even more devastating violence, is to have any chance of being avoided. Washington's blundering has already cost too much in blood and destruction: lessons should have been learned. Ultimately, it is the Iraqis who have the greatest stake in their country and not, whatever its economic and strategic interests, the United States. Thus, if Sunday's sacrifices are to be judged by history as warranted, the democratic process - and whatever it legitimately brings - must be taken beyond this first step.


http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=17&article_id=12233

It would be sure a shocker when the Iraq reliase that after election the US are still staying.