But really, whatever may be the outcome the day after tomorrow, and whatever the shenanigans that went into the elections (including alleged threats of not getting their rations), it's hard not to be moved by the visuals which seemed genuine enough (even taking into account reports that journalists were restricted to covering only a few voting centres, it does seem altogether conspiratorial to suggest that all those visuals were orchestrated a la Firdaus Square), and from/by people who are by no means your standard lackey or opportunist. In the face of that, Bush has the anti-war people (afraid to say movement) somewhat on the defensive -- everything would appear to be carping.
It would seem that those of us opposed to the war may need to re-think how we continue to address the issues. The old ones are fine, but he got away with them (and that, I think, was always the point of why he had to lose the elections; almost regardless of what the other guy had to say). And to a good proportion of well-meaning people, those visuals are going to make a difference, I'd think. And if the US is to get out of Iraq, it's all those well-meaning, but ideologically uncommitted, who need to be persuaded that this is all wrong.
Sure, the day after tomorrow, the Bushies may come to rue the elections (it may well change the world, but not in the way the Bushies think they are celebrating; or, as in their rejection of the vote for Hamas, it's what they actually do -- indicating the limits of the democracy they are prepared to tolerate, as with the pressure on Qatar re al-Jazeera). I note that, amongst Iraqi expatriates, the highest voter registration was in Iran, and amongst the reasons for their voting is a more Islamic state in Iraq. And the lines of women in what passes for contemporary Islamic garb was rather 'shocking' -- I don't recall images like that in the late 1980s/early 1990s. It'd appear that the society has acquired a religiousity that wasn't there previously. The same is being reported of Syria.
True, the Bushies may not have wanted the elections in the first place. But they have been nimble enough, with plenty of collaboration from the US and world media, to seize upon it and make virtue out of necessity -- and then when pressed to delay, to insist upon it, thus making it seem like theirs in the first place. Having played down what to expect, and given a bit of assist by Zarqawi, they then seized upon the turnout as vindication. We have to point to all the shortcomings, the if's and but's, that democracy is more than just elections, etc., but this is a losing proposition -- as there's always the riposte that there wouldn't even be this flawed election but for the invasion, and it's not really viable to argue that no elections is better than even flawed elections with some modicum of procedural propriety. I don't think comparisons with 1967 Vietnam can really cut much ice now.
Or, am I conceding too much?
kj khoo