7-19-05, 9:20 am
When 8.5 million Iraqis braved threats of violence to vote last January 30, it was hailed by most people as a victory for post-Saddam Iraq. When 86% of them voted against the Bush administration’s handpicked leader of the transitional authority empowered to oversee the conduct of elections and the formation of a National Assembly in Iraq, their effort warrants a new examination.
The administration hid its disappointment in the outcome behind voluble claims that its war policy is right because democracy in the Middle East is on the way. In fact, they hinted, the election even implied that critics could overlook the lies, the half-truths, and the manipulations that the administration employed to lead the country to war. The ends justified the means, they proclaimed.
What we didn’t know was that behind this veneer of good will, another lie had been brewing since the spring of 2004.
According to a recent story by Seymour Hersh published in the New Yorker, the administration feared a take over of Iraq by an Iran-backed Shi’ite political movement. Such an occurrence, by their thinking, might threaten the very reason for ousting Saddam and occupying Iraq in the first place: securing a US-friendly regime.
Ahem, making Iraq safe for democracy.
I know the logic is difficult: attack a country and expect them to love you. But that was the basis of the Iraq policy.
So, as Hersh reports, the administration began to debate whether or not to use taxpayer funds earmarked for the election generally to fund exclusively the campaign of their favorite Iyad Allawi, a former Saddam apparatchik, current CIA toady, and anti-Iran candidate.
One side of the debate pointed out that if people found out that the administration gave the money to Allawi, it would appear that the Bush administration bought the election to impose its will on the Iraqi people. (After mass demonstrations forced the administration to postpone the election until January 30, 2005, it was clear that the best they could hope for was a sizeable vote in the elections and retain strong influence.)
The other side of the debate insisted that the Islamist parties would use corrupt methods to win and were receiving aid from Iran, so leveling the playing field by financially backing Allawi was OK.
The National Security Council and the most of the State Department (head by Powell and Rice) liked the 'level playing field' idea and developed a plan for funneling millions, as much as $40 million, to pay for Allawi’s campaign.
Elections-related NGOs, including the National Endowment for Democracy, which usually doesn’t mind being used by the CIA to funnel resources to political movements favored by the US government (see its role in the Venezuela elections when they gave anti-Chávez forces gobs of cash), this time complained.
According to Hersh, they were indignant at the idea of being a front for a covert operation that undermined Iraqi democracy (yeah right) and called for open and transparent elections, or they’d refuse to lend their good names.
Additionally, election monitors continued to get wind of a covert election operation from the State Department.
But, as Hersh reports, a State Department official confirmed rumors that covert funding for Allawi’s campaign was approved by the State Department and by the White House. Former CIA and military intelligence operatives also confirmed the story, describing an elaborate scheme to funnel money through secret funds, avoiding the scrutiny of and bulldozing over the objections of members of Congress, and certainly not being honest with the American people whose children were dying to 'bring democracy.'
What does this sordid tale say about the Bush people? Well, they really don’t believe in democracy. In fact, their claim that the war was about bringing democracy to an oppressed people was a sham. It exposes the central myth repeatedly spouted by Bush for what it really is: when he says 'democracy' and 'freedom,' he really means doing things his way, or watch out.
What does it say about the Iraqi people and the political process they have had thrust upon them? First, that the administration could not simply appoint a leader and could not hold elections at its whim because of mass popular pressure suggests a crack in the administration's apparent domination of the country. (Note: the armed insurgency had little influence on delaying the election originally slated for June 2004, which certainly would have seen Bush’s favorite win.)
Second, it also suggests a politically savvy response by the Iraqi people against the imposition of a government upon them.
Third, the course of these events, despite the glaring problems with the elections, point to the likelihood that the vast majority of Iraqis at this time are willing to use a vote and the political process to express their will.
This non-violent form of resistance won’t last forever, says Salam Ali of the Iraqi Communist Party, which too participates in the political process and holds two seats in the assembly. Ali pointed out that Iraqi Prime Minister al-Jaafari’s recent maneuvers to cozy up to the administration by playing up the security threat and echoing Bush’s dismissal of the timetable for withdrawal enshrined in the political process by UN Security Council Resolution 1546 might signal the opening of a new course of action endorsed by most Iraqis. He refused to speculate on this, but hinted that patriotic resistance aimed exclusively at the US military forces, as distinct from opportunist Ba’athists or fundamentalist terrorists, might be perceived as more acceptable.
Ali also didn’t think much of al-Jaafari’s political future if he continued on a path of parroting the administration’s apparent willingness to sidestep the political process, the will of the cobbled together coalition cabinet, the work of the National Assembly, and by extension the stated purpose of the elections that 8.5 million Iraqis risked their lives to participate in.
The failure to hold to the timetable would ruin the work put into building a sovereign Iraq.
But even as al-Jaafari echoes Bush on the security issue and hints at doing away with the political process (likely a maneuver to hold onto as much power after the Constitutional referendum and new elections scheduled for no later than early next year), he has signed a multi-billion dollar aid deal with Iran. Right under Bush’s nose!
Bush’s plans have failed from the start. The Iraqi people didn’t welcome the US military with flowers and parades. They didn’t accept his timetable for elections. They didn’t vote for his appointee. And they are already organizing relationships with other countries that will allow them to get out of under the total hegemony of the US.
Now that’s people power.
--Joel Wendland is managing editor of Political Affairs. Reach him at jwendland@politicalaffairs.net.
