Local elections in Iraq vs. social chaos

Via Talkingpointsmemo, a very interesting exchange over at Juan Coles' site on how Bremer's decision to cancel local elections a year ago has led to the very dire consequences the U.S. military is dealing with right now.

"In recent weeks, political reporters have done much to clarify the development of prisoner-interrogation policies in Iraq. I hope that similar efforts might clarify the decision-making process that led the occupation authorities in June 2003 to reject any plans for early local elections in Iraq.

How important was this policy? Its consequences may be seen in the problems that we face today. Your 6/19/2003 report [1] on the cancellation of planned municipal elections in Najaf is particularly painful to reread from today's perspective. (See also the 6/28/2003 article by W. Booth and R. Chandrasekaran in the Washington Post [2].) You reported then that local US officials believed "Najaf was ready for elections and that the theocrats would have done poorly." But even if the Sadrists had won the election, their movement may have developed very differently over the past year if they could have built their political power by spending public funds for local reconstruction, rather than by recruiting soldiers for armed resistance.

In the exchange, between Cole and Roger Myerson, an economist from the University of Chicago, they go on to discuss the reasons for Bremer's decision (Jay Garner had promoted local elections, and he feels he was fired as a result), which they conclude was a desire to maintain our political proxies' control of the government, which would have ended had free elections in place, and to make sure there was no local elected opposition to "free market reforms" planned by the neocons in their infinite wisdom.

Another tragic decision made on our behalf.