January 26 ,2005 - History repeats itself. In the run-up to the invasion-turned-occupation of Iraq, the sweeping majority of the international community saw no justification for it or even logic behind it. The Bush administration, alone, saw it would be doing Iraqis a great favor by introducing to them democracy and freedom. Well, almost two years later, consequences on the ground speak for themselves!

Now, the scene seems to be repeated, almost identically. In the run-up to the Iraqi elections, it is clear to every one—even to the White House—the sought-after results can hardly be achieved, but Bush and his hawks insist on going ahead with the controversial process as they planned it, or should we say improvised it!

And only days before holding the elections, slated for January30 , the question still remains: Could the United States listen to the voice of reason and delay the controversial polls, even for a couple of months, to send a message to Iraqis boycotting the poll that the aim is stabilizing the occupied country and taking it out of the current chaos?

Well, let’s keep that question to one side for now and try, first, to look deeply into realities on the ground, in an attempt to see where Iraq might be headed.

Legitimacy

The legitimacy of the election itself is not a settled issue, with most law experts saying the relevant UN Security Council Resolution ( 1546for2004 )—the legal base on which Washington and its hand-picked interim government had set the date—could not be considered a legal drive as the UNSC, in discussing the resolution, overlooked the mere fact of occupation itself!

Commenting on the legitimacy of the coming Iraqi polls, Ben Clarke a senior lecturer at the College of Law , University of Notre Dame, Australia , says the Security Council resolution1546 , issued unanimously in2004 , endorsed the timetable for the political transition in Iraq leading to a constitutionally elected government by 31 December2005 .

He further added that the Iraqi Interim Government is, from a strictly legal point of view, bound by that timetable.

"The resolution provides the authority for the holding of elections in Iraq . It does not address the issue of the legal validity of elections that do not encompass the entire population of Iraq due to the ongoing insurgency. Neither does it require elections to be delayed until all Iraqis are able to participate. The issue of whether elections which take place in some (but not all) parts of Iraq can be regarded as valid, is essentially a political rather than a legal question."

Clarke concludes by saying judgments as to the validity of the process must be made by the Iraqi and the international community, "having regard to voter registration, participation, the viability of delaying the elections in the face of an extremely brutal insurgency, and whether voters were able to exercise choice without intimidation."

But the occupation itself was illegal, as stated by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan himself over a year and a half after the milk was already spilled (a bit late, so to speak). Consequently, any resultant situations should definitely be considered null and void, from a strictly legal point of view.

Other, or rather most, legal experts, also judging from a strictly legal point of view, insist that holding the elections in Iraq has no legal basis and dismiss the UN Security Council resolution as a political, not legal "thing" to build on, as a way out of the current quagmire.

Legitimacy, however, seems to be the last thing occupying the minds of the current US administration: the examples are numerous, be that Iraq or occupied Palestine . It is clear that imposing what it sees as right, even by force, has become the slogan championed by the Bush team.

As a case in point, during the run-up to the Iraq invasion, it was crystal clear the decision was made and then the search for justifications began. That explains the continuous change of the main rationale to go to war, starting with the fiasco of weapons of mass destruction, which came to a shameful end on January12 , when the White House finally admitted there would be no such weapons found. Actually, the final report concluded " Iraq never had such weapons since1991 ."

US probes and resultant reports also dismissed any solid link between the secular regime of ousted dictator Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda, flatly refuting the second major justification for going to war—but who cares now!

The tragic fact is Al-Qaeda-affiliated militants do currently exist in Iraq , regardless of their actual weight in resisting the US occupation forces. For that, Saddam sure gets no credit, Bush does!

So, what pops up in one’s mind now is what Bush has been repeating over and over again to build his case for invasion.

"A free Iraq can be a source of hope for all the Middle East ," he said one month before the invasion. "Instead of threatening its neighbors and harboring terrorists, Iraq can be an example of progress and prosperity in a region that needs both."

Is that the case now, Mr. President?

Well, it is only logic then, that when Bush sees Iraqis going to polling stations as "an historic day," one doesn’t have to be pessimistic to have serious doubts about Bush’s visions and judgments! He called the Palestinian elections "historic," too but what has changed on the ground?

Significant Signals

What is more worrying now, or at least not promising, is the increased tuning down of the importance, or significance, or expected results of these highly controversial Iraqi elections. The signals are coming from Washington and from its ally in Baghdad , the interim government!

According to a report by the Los Angeles Times Monday, January17 ,2005 , administration officials have been downgrading their expectations of the elections to merely "counting on the election to increase the legitimacy and popularity of the Iraqi government, which now is widely viewed as a tool of US interests. The administration reasons that the insurgents will have more difficulty rallying support if the government is selected by popular vote." The paper even quoted a State Department official as saying, "The illegitimacy of the current government will have been removed. That particular moral legitimacy of the insurgents will have been brought into question."

Again, the issue of legitimacy imposes itself on a scene lacking the minimum legal foundations. Now, US officials are bringing up the issue of "illegitimacy" of the Allawi government, a bit late again!

Putting all that nonsensical legitimacy talk aside, which is only for history books, and future generations to judge, the question now is: Where could the elections lead and what could the future prospects of post-election Iraq be?

A host of former, and even current, US officials, analysts, and observers has been drawing an almost black picture, expecting practically nothing good to come out of the elections. The most optimistic are actually saying the elections could, in best-case scenario, be the beginning of a "long and exhausting process"!

In light of all these mixed cards, what could election day in Iraq be like? On which scene could the following day's sun be rising?!

Khaled Mamdouh is an editor on IslamOnline.net’s News Desk. He is also a radio announcer, and journalist and translator for several Arabic magazines. You can reach him at khaledm69@hotmail.com