Dems

The Washington Post reported last week that the Bush administration is sticking to its timetable to transfer power in Iraq over to the Iraqis on June 30.

This timetable is planned even if the Kofi Annan dispatched United Nations team finds reason to believe that this date for whatever reason is unacceptable.

The details are not commonly known, so before we go into arguments, let us give you a brief summary. The Bush administration is calling for a transfer of power from the U.S.-led coalition to the Iraqi people on the date of June 30 of this year.

When the transfer of power occurs, caucuses, rather than direct elections, will take place in each region of Iraq in order to form a general assembly.

Both the Bush administration and the Iraqi interim government believe that June 30 is an essential time for the transfer of power.

In order to see if this deadline is possible, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has dispatched a team of investigators to Iraq, but there is controversy because he has already begun to find problems.

While the need for Iraqis to have control of their government is vital, building a strong democracy is a complicated process and the timing that this administration sets forth may not be effective.

Of the numerous concerns, we wish to provide you with a few examples of why the timetable is flawed. The most powerful Shi’ite Muslim cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, favors direct elections instead of caucuses. As a result, massive numbers of Shi’ite Muslims have protested the U.S. plan.

Shi’ite Muslims make up the majority, 60 percent of Iraq’s population.

Al-Sistani wishes to have early elections, because he believes that enough data has been compiled by both sides of the controversy to make a decision.

He feels that an early election would be fair and balanced given this information. On the other side, the minority Sunni Muslims wish to wait until June 30 because they believe that an early election would not have a credible ballot.

Disagreement on how to begin a government is certainly not uncommon in history. One of many examples would be all the issues that our “founding fathers” disagreed upon when the United States won its independence from Britain. So, certainly we cannot expect blind cooperation between the Shi’ites and the Sunnis.

However, another idea to keep in mind is that there is a lot of anger still alive in Iraq.

On top of the anti-U.S. sentiment that has resulted in the continued car bombs such as the recent one that killed as many as 50 people, there is still anger alive among the Iraqi factions.

Is it wrong to state that there will probably be some embittered relations among the regions of Iraq? Just look at what happened with Afghanistan. All the different tribes have representation in their government, but there is constant bitterness between them.

Our troops who are there are about the only thing holding that government in place. Crime is rampant, as we have all witnessed on the news.

Maybe it is unfair to compare Iraq with Afghanistan, but then again, maybe not.

This article is only scratching the surface of the topic, if that. Obviously, Iraq needs to govern itself and we need to pull out the majority of our forces as soon as it’s plausible.

However, there may be a role for the United Nations in nation-building that our timeline doesn’t provide for. It would seem as of right now that there is still much disagreement among the Iraqis about when and how to start the government.

Perhaps Bush should lend an ear to this and consider being a little more lenient on the date of when to hand over the government so that both sides are content with the final decision.

————————————————————————————-

GOP

What an amazing thing it is to say that soon there will be elections in Iraq. To think, that just a year ago Iraq was under the corrupt rule of Saddam Hussein, and now its people are free. However, it is not yet time to gloat. Still a grave situation lingers in Iraq that needs immediate remedy.

The pressing need for elections in Iraq is growing, and so are rising political and religious sentiments calling for harsh and diverging changes from the strategy previously agreed upon.

The current plan, proposed by the White House and the Coalition Governing Authority in Iraq, is to hold a caucus-based election shortly after June 30. This model would elect short-term leaders to oversee the building of a greater Iraq and a more stable election system that would contain direct democratic elections. This system accomplishes many goals.

Most importantly, it does not allow for one group or religious sect to dominate the election process. The Shi’ite Muslims constitute approximately 60 percent of the total population in Iraq. Having been oppressed for decades under the rule of Saddam, a Sunni Muslim, they are seeking to make their voice heard – a very understandable desire.

While it is quite reasonable to grant every group in Iraq legitimate say in matters of national concern, the Shi’ite are liable to become a dominating authority in Iraq, thus shutting out the voices of lesser groups such as the Kurdish people of the north or the Sunni in central Iraq.

This problem may be quite larger than it sounds. The Shi’ites, having been subjugated for lifetimes under Saddam, may seek revenge on the Sunni population, which was more associated with the former tyrant than any other group.

This alone could pose a great threat to the stability of Iraq, as there have already been calls for a civil war between the Sunnis and the Shi’ites. Leading these calls are, you guessed it, members of Al Qaeda and the Ayatollahs in Iraq’s neighbor and long-time enemy Iran. A letter recently intercepted by U.S. intelligence forces was written by one Abu Massab al Zarqawi, a man with links to Al Qaeda and who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people in the Middle East including U.S. diplomat Laurence Foley. Zarqawi requests more assistance from outside sources in recruiting terrorists and with inciting Shi’ites and Sunnis into a civil war.

In addition, Iran has sent possibly thousands of religious figures into Iraq to rally Shi’ite Muslims to revolt against the United States’ authority and gain command in Iraq. It can be easily seen then, why the Bush administration and most experts agree that direct elections at such a volatile stage could be a bad idea.

In an effort to appease Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the figurehead of the protests being carried out in Iraq that are calling for direct elections, Bush has asked the United Nations to help analyze the situation. While reluctant to do so at first, the U.N. recognized the impending hostilities emerging in Iraq, and has sent over nine analysts to determine the general sentiment in Iraq concerning elections and recommend a compromise between those who want direct elections and those in favor of caucuses.

Giving the Iraqi people a direct vote too soon opens the gates for mobs of uneducated voters, people not familiar with the democratic process, to vote based on temporary and hostile emotions.

This kind of situation is liable to electing another tyrannical dictator to the top seat in Iraq.

What we need is the measured release of power to the Iraqi people in an effort to sustain order and ensure success in the full dissemination of democratic rights to all people in Iraq.

This is the strategy of Bush, and while the suggestions of the United Nations will be paid great heed, our plan is one worth sticking to.