Whichever U.S. candidate wins in the upcoming days, they will certainly have their hands full in the first month of their new term if all goes according to plan. The plan I’m referring to is the goal that the U.S. has put forward of having elections in Iraq at the end of January. Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last couple years (or watching/listening to FOX news), you probably know that the Shiites are the majority of the Iraqi population, and are strongly opposed to the current occupation (and the U.S. in general, for the most part). This presents a dilemma for the U.S. which will probably overshadow all the other failings in Iraq thus far.
There are only a few things I can see happening, none of which could really be considered a good outcome. The U.S. could allow truly “free” democratic elections to be held, in which the majority rules, and there would then be a government in power who would probably demand that we release control of their country (resources, rebuilding contracts, etc.) to them. Would we comply, I wonder? Would we actually prevent the elections from being held to avoid this probable situation?
Either way, it will undermine the propaganda that we’ve pushed as our reason for being there. My prediction is that the spin machine will try to promote the concept that the Iraqi’s just need the opportunity to be truly free, which (between the lines) will mean free to be on our side. If we actually allow the elections to go forward and go along with the results that would almost certainly not be in our best interests, it would earn our government a great deal of respect in my eyes and I’m sure also those of our international neighbors. Here’s hoping…