Dan RatherIMAGINE FOR a moment that it is early February in Iraq. Confounding the most dire predictions, elections for the new Iraq National Assembly have proceeded with a minimum of violence, and only scattered reports of fraud and ballot tampering. Now that the votes have finally been counted, it appears that Shiite candidates have won a clear but not overwhelming majority in Iraq's governing body and Sunni-aligned candidates and their supporters are, by and large, accepting the results as legitimate. There are signs that Iraq's political class is willing to pull together, at least for the moment, in the name of national unity.
Welcome to a possible best-case scenario for the next chapter in Iraq's history. And as you imagine what it will be like for that burned and battered country to finally have its transitional government fully in place, ask yourself this: Does this mean that the hydra-headed insurgency will now lay down its arms and improvised explosive devices? Does this mean that the U.S. force additions that have been billed as temporary, in advance of the election, can now be drawn down again? Does it mean that American servicemen and women will be returning home anytime soon?
Your reporter does not know that anyone is looking to Iraq's scheduled elections as any kind of magic bullet for that nation's long list of troubles. But the challenges that have gone along with trying to ready Iraq for nationwide voting have been such that there has been an understandable tendency among America's press, public and policy-makers to look no further than election day. Those in Washington and Baghdad who are in charge of the U.S. effort in Iraq have, presumably, thought about what will happen after the votes are cast. It can't hurt, however, for the rest of us to start thinking about it too and to start asking what the contingency plans will be if ballots do not silence bullets.
It was hoped, remember, that the transfer of governmental power from the U.S.-headed Coalition Provisional Authority to the Iraqi interim government would spell the beginning of the end for the insurgency, just like the capture of Saddam Hussein before that. The record, in death, danger and instability, has told another story.
CRUCIAL DIFFERENCE
There is an important and potentially crucial difference this time: The Iraqi people will be directly involved will, in the best case, have turned out to vote in substantial numbers. But there are limits to what even the best-intentioned people in Iraq can do in the face of guerrilla fighters and terrorists with seemingly limitless caches of arms and munitions, whose numbers are augmented by those who pass daily through Iraq's porous borders with Iran and Syria.
There is the risk, too, that the coming elections will spark a whole new set of problems for Iraq and for U.S. attempts to bring stability there. Once that nation's power struggles have been decided, one or more groups may well conclude that they don't agree with the decision. Some Sunni leaders have, for example, called for their followers to boycott the elections, setting the stage for a potential battle over legitimacy. Could a lopsided result be a catalyst, for instance, for Iraq's long-feared civil war?
Democracy is a wonderful thing. But as we have seen in even our own, most stable of democratic republics, it can be messy. As we watch the preparations for Iraq's first vote in the post-Saddam era, it seems prudent to remember that this will be, at best, a first step down a long road. Iraqis, and the U.S. troops among them, will not be home yet. Not by a long shot.
Dan Rather is an American broadcast journalist.
