In this mixed up, crazy world one thing is certain: Handing sovereignty back to the Iraqi people is not going to be easy. As the June 30th deadline approaches, the questions are beginning to mount. Questions like, if the new Iraqi government is in charge of the country, how can we keep American troops in there to maintain order? What about democratic elections? Perhaps it's a little much to be asking the Bush Administration those sorts of questions when it took so long to figure out why we invaded in the first place.

At least the president finally figured out who we'll be handing sovereignty to on June 30th. Turns out, it's a hand-picked interim government.

The elections are supposed to take place in early 2005. This might also provide a clue as to how the continued presence of U.S. troops will be justified; because, unless Iraq's domestic security forces are able to dramatically increase their effectiveness, one can expect Iraq's new leaders to ask us to stick around a little while.

One wonders why the Administration wants to put off the elections for so long. Well, if they were to hold them now it's a sure bet that some very anti-American people would wind up in power. But the problems we have with holding elections now are not likely to change in the next year, unless a friendly native is able to build up a huge power-bloc. Since anyone seen to be working with U.S. forces immediately becomes a target, hoping for a charismatic, powerful, and popular leader with a soft-spot for Americans to step forward seems like a long shot.

Fundamentally, the problem is this: Anyone we support will be suspect, in the minds of the Iraqi people. Such a person could never win an honest election. Especially since the U.S.-friendly candidate couldn't engage in the same kind of voter intimidation his opponents inevitably would. So, why put off the elections? What's so special about early 2005?

There's only one reason; the American presidential election will be over by then.

Let's face it, an Iraqi election would be a debacle no matter when it were held. If it were held before November, Bush's handling of Iraqi would seem even more like an abject failure. That sort of thing won't matter after November, whether he wins or loses. If he wins, who cares what happens, as long as he doesn't get impeached? If he loses, he hands a bomb off to the Kerry administration – one that they can't defuse. "Early 2005" is vague enough to allow Bush to do nothing on democratic elections, and then let the incoming administration worry about it. And there's no doubt the elections will go badly. If they thought they'd be a smashing success, they'd be doing it right now. More importantly, they could offer to hold elections in December of this year, or January of the next. But they won't, because if even if Bush loses, his Administration's pride is at stake.

The Iraqi elections are a trap for a hypothetical President Kerry, which makes one wonder what others could lie in wait for him. Even though his primary focus at this stage is on campaigning and fund-raising, John Kerry had better have somebody figuring out an elegant way to get out of this situation.

Still, at least Kerry is likely to try to find the best solution to this problem. A lame-duck Bush Administration has no incentive whatsoever to excel.

-B. C. Silvia
-6/2/2004