Op-Ed: Iraqi Election will Loosen Dirt for Inevitable Mudslide

By Donald Snow

We are moving inexorably toward the Jan. 30, 2005 national elections in Iraq. The elections and their outcome are, to paraphrase an old dean of mine, going to have the attractiveness and the inevitability of a mudslide. The electoral process and its results are going to be ugly, and there is nothing that can be done to prevent them.

There remains a residual debate over whether the elections should be held at all at this time, and there are arguments on both sides of that issue. In my view, the more compelling arguments suggest to me that they should be delayed because of what they will produce, but that debate is quite beside the point. The election will be held not because of what the Iraqis want or because of the benefits they might derive. The election will be held because George W. Bush says it will.

The unattractiveness of the election and its outcomes are well known. Lt. General Thomas Metz, the American commander on the ground, stated last week that the security situation in four provinces, in which nearly half the Iraqi population resides, is so unstable and unsettled that he cannot guarantee the safety of voters. In other words, almost half the population has the option of risking their lives by going to the polls or staying home and not participating. One can be assured the Iraqi resistance will be out in force intimidating and attacking polling places, with resulting carnage. In response, expect, at best, a mixed performance by local police and the new Iraqi army—all, of course, on global television. Can one expect a representative turnout under those circumstances?

And then there is the Sunni minority of former rulers, who have uniformly argued against the elections and, through their political organs, vociferously promised to boycott the entire proceeding. Once again, what kind of skewed result can we expect?

The election itself is almost certain to be a bloody, chaotic mess that will produce electoral outcomes that hardly anybody can endorse. The nightmare scenario, of course, is the election of a virtually unanimous Shiite government that will adopt the Iranian model. That outcome would be horrible and leave the United States in a very precarious position: do we support the democratic process that produces a virulently anti-American regime, or do we void the proceedings? More likely, the result will be less definitive, but because of questions about the whole process, the legitimacy of whoever wins will be open to question.

Why is this predictable nightmare inevitable? The answer, I fear, is because it is the prestige of the United States, and specifically the Bush administration, that requires that it be held. If the elections are delayed, that delay will be viewed as a victory of the resistance over the United States: it is the Americans who will appear intimidated.

Moreover, the administration has been arguing that we are making progress toward democratization, and the election is the crown jewel of the claim of progress. Without elections, claims of progress seem hollow. With elections, progress is at least arguable.

It is this issue of progress that makes the mudslide inevitable. We need an election that can be argued as having been democratic to justify our continuing presence, but most importantly to demonstrate progress that will allow us to begin the process of disengagement from Iraq.

Progress is thus fundamental, and claims of its success are inevitable. It is almost certain, for instance, that the elections will be procedurally pretty corruption-free: those Iraqis who get to the polls will have their ballots counted. Of course, many will not get to the polls, but the absence of corruption will be widely trumpeted as evidence of progress.

Why is progress, or the success, of the elections so important? The answer is that it is the key to activating the process of American withdrawal from Iraq. The administration does not and never has had an “exit strategy” for Iraq, and it must by now realize it is not going to pacify the country in any acceptable period of time. How do we get out with some shard of dignity?

Declare progress, by golly! The election demonstrates that things are becoming better (more democratic), and that is progress toward our goal of a democratic Iraq. Expect that to be combined with reports of growing progress in training the policy and the army. The election proves they can govern themselves, the police and army demonstrates they can take care of their own security. We will be gradually needed less, and thus we can begin to turn over responsibility to the Iraqis and come home.

If this “Iraqification” sounds a lot like “Vietnamization” a generation ago, it should. Short of a modern Aiken resolution (named after the late Vermont senator describing how to get out of Vietnam) that we simply declare victory, leave, and let them figure out what victory means, Iraqification is the only way out of Iraq.

The election is the first loosening of the dirt for this mudslide. In Vietnam, the result was an all-communist Vietnam, but the results of mudslides are not so predictable as to allow precise analogies. One thing, though, is certain: the outcome of mudslides is never pretty to behold.

Dr. Donald Snow, professor of political science at The University of Alabama, is the author of “National Security for a New Era: Globalization and Geopolitics” and “United States Foreign Policy: Politics Beyond the Water’s Edge” (3rd edition). He is working on a book on terrorism and has held visiting professorships at the U.S Air Command and Staff College, U.S. Naval War College, U.S. Army War College, and the U.S. Air War College.