With Fallujah being pounded to bits, jihadi and insurgent attacks everywhere and a state of emergency, this may seem like a bad time to discuss the Iraqi elections, but there’s no reason to suppose that there’s going to be a better one.
In the Washington Post, Marina Ottaway develops concerns I’ve expressed previously about the possibility that the Iraqi election will degenerate into a Yes-No vote on a unified slate of candidates with a predetermined sharing of the spoils (thanks to Jack Strocchi for the link). Apparently the US Embassy/shadow government is backing this idea. It seems unbelievable that anyone on the US side could see this as a good idea (of course, it makes great sense for Allawi who would be wiped out in a competitive election), but this kind of thing has been the pattern at every previous stage of the occupation
John Quiggin 
Razor, I appreciate your unspeaking of your previous position.
I hope you read the article I pointed to above which demonstrates that the Bush administration is rewriting the Laws of War as we speak.
I was entirely unaware of your military career but do understand how sentiment can cloud judgement.
Michael,
We’re getting a bit off the point but I’ll make one last comment.
A simple principle is that we do what we can and where we can be most effective. We can rage against Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia, but it would mostly be for our own satisfaction. But, living in a democracy we have a great deal of influence over the actions of our own Government, and to a much lesser degree the US, through our alliance.
I’m not saying that Islamic fundamentalism should be ignored, it certainly shouldn’t, but we need to be realistic about our influence.
An argument against this might be that the former is the most pressing danger facing the world and therefore should be our focus. You seem to take this position.
I simply can’t see this. Sure, Islamic terrorism is a threat, but I think it is dwarfed in comparison to the threat posed by a state that is a military hyper-power with WMD, avowedly disdainful of international law, preferring unilateralism over co-operation and openly advocating a lower threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. All this controlled by a man who thinks that God ordained that he should be President. Not a situation that inspires confidence in the triumph of reason over divine instruction.
Maybe considering this a priority is just “political correctness” and “anti-Americanism” (whatever that means), but if it is, then I am and proudly so.
As for the elections in Iraq, I have trouble seeing a good outcome. Maybe the imposition of some kind of order by the US and a vaguely free election is the best we can hope for. It’s certainly not what I think should happen, but the continuing insurgency is killing mostly Iraqis.