Of course the White House fears free elections in Iraq .

[greatauntoftriplets]

Mods, I apologize if this is a dupe. I can't believe this has not been posted yet, but I certainly can't find it.

Only an appointocracy can be trusted to accept US troops and corporations

Naomi Klein
Saturday January 24, 2004
The Guardian

"The people of Iraq are free," declared President Bush in his state of the union address on Tuesday. The previous day, 100,000 Iraqis begged to differ. They took to Baghdad's streets, shouting: "Yes, yes to elections. No, no to selection."
According to Iraq occupation chief Paul Bremer, there really is no difference between the White House's version of freedom and the one being demanded on the street. Asked whether his plan to form an Iraqi government through appointed caucuses was heading towards a clash with Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's call for direct elections, Bremer said he had no "fundamental disagreement with him".

It was, he said, a mere quibble over details. "I don't want to go into the technical details of refinements. There are - if you talk to experts in these matters - all kinds of ways to organise partial elections and caucuses. And I'm not an election expert, so I don't want to go into the details. But we've always said we're willing to consider refinements."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1130138,00.html

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. He doesn't want free elections in America

why would anyone think he would want free elections anywhere else?

[Iverson]

2. just read it, a fine piece

It notes the legal obligations for an occupying power to be a caretaker, not a looter, against which 100% foreign ownership of their industries would be a violation.

[MrBenchley]

3. EVERYBODY fears free elections in Iraq

Now instead of a secular regime that was making friendly overtures to its neighbors, the Middle East will have a radical theocracy that will repress its minorities and threatens pro-Western peaceful countries like Jordan.

Remember, this unelected drunk assured us there was a solid plan for post-war Iraq...which turned out to have the same reality as the WMDs.

[gristy]

4. Pulling off elections in Iraq is going to be very difficult .

I see lots of problems

1) Need to make sure the elections are legitimate so that the Iraqis will buy into the result. That means the process must be open, transparent, and have careful oversight and safeguards against fraud. I don't think the US will be successful in this regard, given the * admin's record in this area. They will poo-poo any objections from the Iraqis, though at their peril.

2) If they end up doing this by caucuses and appointments, the Iraqis will be furious, having had their hope for a democracy snatched away. Yeah, I know how that feels - happened here not too long ago...

3) Real elections, where voters show up at a polling place over one day, are sure not to happen. The potential for murderous violence is very real.

4) Whatever form "elections" in Iraq take, * is sure to take no responsibility for a process or outcome that turns out to be a disaster. It will be the fault of "Sadam loyalists" and "terrorists".

Bremer wants his Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to appoint the members of 18 regional organising committees. These will then choose delegates to form 18 selection caucuses. These will then select representatives to a transitional national assembly. The assembly will have an internal vote to select an executive and ministers, who will form the new government. This, Bush said in the state of the union address, constitutes "a transition to full Iraqi sovereignty".

[greatauntoftriplets]

5. Ironically, Iraqis certainly know what happened here in 2000.

They probably already have serious doubts about our commitment to ensuring legitimate elections.

Excellent points, gristy.