Iran is in the mix - results of Iraq elections in doubt

I have long regarded the upcoming elections in Iraq with very mixed emotions. Once again, we are faced with a situation where a strategic decision must be made that runs counter to what we might ordinarily choose if circumstances were different. A case study in this would be Bush's decision to go into Iraq in the first place. Yes Saddam was evil. But in removing him we we hurt ourselves. Saddam is gone, but Al Qaeda is stronger. 1,200 American soldiers are dead and 10,000 are wounded. Many previously solid international relationships are in tatters. What was expected to be a short military engagement has no projected end after almost two years.

Unfortunately, we cannot uninvade Iraq. We are where we are. So it doesn't really benefit anyone to re-hash the myriad of reasons why it wasn't a good idea to go there. Likewise, we cannot take back the cavalcade of errors that were made immediately after the invasion. We can only begin to do things differently. We have to start acting in our own interests some time. The elections would be a good time to consider putting our national interests ahead of a romantic ideal.

While elections are near and dear to all of our American hearts, President Bush's insistence that they be carried forward while Iraq is so unstable will result in a stronger enemy. Like so much of this administration's policy, a ham handed approach to accomplishing an admirable goal will create an opposite reality. David Ignatius in Friday's Washington Post writes about How Iran Is Winning Iraq.

If you had asked an intelligence analyst two years ago to describe the worst possible political outcome following an American invasion of Iraq, he might well have answered that it would be a regime dominated by conservative Shiite Muslim clerics with links to neighboring Iran. But just such a regime now seems likely to emerge after Iraq's Jan. 30 elections.

Iran is about to hit the jackpot in Iraq, wagering the blood and treasure of the United States. Last week an alliance of Iraqi Shiite leaders announced that its list of candidates will be headed by Abdul Aziz Hakim, the clerical leader of the Iranian-backed Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. This Shiite list, backed by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, is likely to be the favorite of Iraq's 60 percent Shiite majority and win the largest share of votes next month.

With the stakes so high, Iran can be expected to pull out the stops to influence the outcome as is evidenced by a recent increase of border traffic. Even stalwart Republicans are clamoring for Rumsfeld's resignation, which is interesting since he was one of the primary architects of the policy they all supported. Washington is about to catch inauguration fever. The troops are short on armor and long on tours. The President hands out medals to men who barely deserve it. The New York Times calls it Fiddling while Iraq Burns.

There may have been a time in the beginning where we could have earned the trust of the Iraqi people. But that time is past. Now we must labor to secure the country so a sufficiently diverse majority of the nation can vote in a real election that ultimately delivers a moderate republic that doesn't hate us too much. By racing to elect leaders before Iraq is stable we could hand the whole deal - money and blood - to either Iran or the insurgency. I love elections. But it might be better to wait.