Quote:
Originally posted by Lurch@Nov 24 2004, 09:47 PM
Quote:
So . . . . you're saying there should be no security at polling stations in Iraq?
Is that what you were saying about security at polling stations in Afghanistan?
|
I think he's suggesting that you and the pro-US crowd would have a problem with the elections if al-Sadr's crew provided the security - I'm sure you don't believe that if this was the case but there were 156 candidates it would guarantee a fair result. If Republican challengers at the polls in Ohio are an issue in democracy, it's pretty easy to see that American soldiers poised to arrest alleged "militants" at the polls might just pose a problem to a fair election, especially in the minds of those looking to dispute the results. It doesn't logically follow that the US influence on the election is nill because there are 156 candidates on the ballot.
|
Sorry, still don't get it.
We can all agree there has to be security given the crazies running around. Who provides that security though?
Here is an NY Times appraisal of polling security considerations from yesterday. The concerns are far different than your own.
Iraqi and American officials believe it is important to deploy Iraqi forces, rather than have American troops police the polls, to ensure the credibility of the vote. But American commanders say that only 145,000 Iraqi security personnel will be trained and ready by election day, now scheduled for Jan. 30, far short of the 270,000 that Iraqi officials say are needed.
The role that American troops will play is still being defined, though they will probably serve as backups out of sight of the polling stations. As such, they will remain important as the final guarantors of security, and American officials are already worrying about a lack of communication with Iraqi election officials.
"The election commission has been operating virtually on its own with no coordination, without sharing information on polling places," said Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island who serves on the Armed Services Committee and who met with American commanders here this month. "Until we get that, it's hard to plan. They need to rehearse so that on the day of polling it's not a day of violence."
"Iraqi policemen and Iraqi National Guardsmen should be there to protect the voting centers, but without any presence of the multinational forces," said Waal Abdul-Latif, the minister of provincial affairs and head of the government committee overseeing election issues. "This is for the sake of stability. This is an Iraqi election, and it will be protected by Iraqi forces."
Further:
The 9,000 voting centers will be in neutral places, like schools and community centers. There will be no armed guards in their immediate vicinity, said Abdul-Hussein al-Hindawi, head of the electoral commission. The exact security arrangements will vary from place to place.
The Americans are expected to remain on the far perimeter of the polling places, perhaps in Iraqi-staffed security centers that have been established recently.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/23/internat...ast/23vote.html
As I've said in other threads, if I thought fixing this election would be beneficial I'd jump in with both feet but, as with Afghanistan, I can't see the point of having anything other than something that passes as free and fair in that part of the world.
Cowperson