juan cole notes that 53 iraqi parties have withdrawn from the january 30th election "to show their rejection of elections under U.S. occupation." that's half of the parties who were slated to participate. throw that in the heap along with other "complications" like election ballots where the identities of most of the candidates are hidden from the voters, election "observers" sitting in amman not iraq, a state of emergency allowing allawi to outlaw activities necessary for a normal political campaign, and large areas of the country (perhaps as much one-half of iraq) being unable to participate in the election because of ongoing violence.
the elections in iraq are shaping up to be a lose-lose situation. holding them under these circumstances is increasingly shaping up to be a fiasco. on the other hand, delaying them also doesn't look like that good of an idea either. as some conservatives have asked, what message would delaying the vote send to the insurgents? and they do have a point there.
there's also the question of what exactly we are delaying the election for. i don't think things are getting any better in iraq. if anything, they're getting worse. there is no light at the end of the tunnel. so if the elections are rescheduled, there's a real question whether the new date will be any better than january 30th. it could be worse
from my trolling around, it seems that these debates ultimately devolve into each side pointing out the flaws in the other side's position. the fact is, both sides are right. either decision is likely to lead to a disaster. the only real answer is that we never should have gone there in the first place. and, unfortunately, that insight does us little good at this point.
