IRAQ ELECTIONS II: GETTING THE PURPLE FINGER
Naomi Klein, The Nation Magazine 2/28/05 issue

I found myself thinking about my late grandmother. Half blind and a menace behind the wheel of
her Chevrolet, she adamantly refused to surrender her car keys. She was convinced that
everywhere she drove (flattening the house pets of Philadelphia along the way) people were
waving and smiling at her. "They are so friendly!" We had to break the bad news. "They aren't
waving with their whole hand, Grandma-just with their middle finger."

Near-sighted election observers... think the Iraqi people have finally sent America those long-
awaited flowers and candies, when Iraq's voters just gave them the (purple) finger.

The election results are in: Iraqis voted overwhelmingly to throw out the US-installed government
of Iyad Allawi, who refused to ask the United States to leave. A decisive majority voted for the
United Iraqi Alliance; the second plank in the UIA platform calls for "a timetable for the
withdrawal of the multinational forces from Iraq."

There are more single-digit messages embedded in the winning coalition's platform. Some
highlights:
In short, Iraqis voted to repudiate the radical free-market policies imposed by former chief US
envoy Paul Bremer and locked in by a recent agreement with the International Monetary Fund.
(http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/develop/debt/2004/1123imfiraq.htm)

So will the people who got all choked up watching Iraqis flock to the polls support these
democratically chosen demands? Please. "You don't set timetables," George W. Bush said four
days after Iraqis voted for exactly that. Likewise, British Prime Minister Tony Blair called the
elections "magnificent" but dismissed a firm timetable out of hand. The UIA's pledges to expand
the public sector, keep the oil and drop the debt will likely suffer similar fates. At least if Adel
Abd al-Mahdi gets his way--he's Iraq's finance minister and the man suddenly being touted [by the
Bush and Blair] as leader of Iraq's next government.

Al-Mahdi is the Bush Administration's Trojan horse in the UIA. (You didn't think they were going
to put all their money on Allawi, did you?) In October he told a gathering of the American
Enterprise Institute that he planned to "restructure and privatize [Iraq's] state-owned enterprises,"
and in December he made another trip to Washington to unveil plans for a new oil law "very
promising to the American investors." It was al-Mahdi himself who oversaw the signing of a flurry
of deals with Shell, BP and ChevronTexaco in the weeks before the elections, and it is he who
negotiated the recent austerity deal with the IMF. On troop withdrawal, al-Mahdi sounds nothing
like his party's platform: "When the Americans go will depend on when our own forces are ready
and on how the resistance responds after the elections."

Iraq's elections were delayed time and time again, while the occupation and resistance grew ever
more deadly. Now it seems that two years of bloodshed, bribery and backroom arm-twisting were
leading up to this: a deal in which the ayatollahs get control over the family, Texaco gets the oil,
and Washington gets its enduring military bases (call it the "oil for women program"). Everyone
wins except the voters, who risked their lives to cast their ballots for a very different set of
policies.

But never mind that. January 30, we are told, was not about what Iraqis were voting for -- it was
about the fact of their voting and, more important, how their plucky courage made Americans feel
about their war. Apparently, the elections' true purpose was to prove to Americans that, as
George Bush put it, "the Iraqi people value their own liberty."

Stunningly, this appears to come as news. Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown said the
vote was "the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people." On
The Daily Show, CNN's Anderson Cooper described it as "the first time we've sort of had a gauge
of whether or not they're willing to sort of step forward and do stuff."

The Shiite uprising against Saddam in 1991 was clearly not enough to convince them that Iraqis
were willing to "do stuff" to be free. Nor was the demonstration of 100,000 people held one year
ago demanding immediate elections, or the spontaneous local elections organized by Iraqis in the
early months of the occupation--both summarily shot down by Bremer.

It turns out that on American TV, the entire occupation has been one long episode of Fear Factor,
in which Iraqis overcome ever-more-challenging obstacles to demonstrate the depths of their
desire to win their country back. Having their cities leveled, being tortured in Abu Ghraib, getting
shot at checkpoints, having their journalists censored and their water and electricity cut off--all of
it was just a prelude to the ultimate endurance test: dodging bombs and bullets to get to the
polling station. At last, Americans were persuaded that Iraqis really, really want to be free.

SO WHAT'S THE PRIZE?
An end to occupation, as the voters demanded? Don't be silly-the US government won't submit to
any "artificial timetable." Jobs for everyone, as the UIA promised? You can't vote for socialist
nonsense like that.

And that should be enough. Because if it weren't for the invasion, Iraqis would not even have the
freedom to vote for their liberation, and then to have that vote completely ignored. And that's the
real prize: the freedom to be occupied.

(Note: for the full version of this article go to http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/021205X.shtml)

For further info on the elections see Iraq Elections II at http://www.8thdaycenter.org/012805.html

ACTIONS
1. Consider attending a rally in your area against the Iraq war on the second anniversary of the
beginning of the war, March 19. Or, consider attending the rally in NY City. For more info go to
http://www.iacenter.org/m19_update3.htm
2. Share and discuss this bulletin with friends, family, coworkers and your faith community.
3. Take heart. A just world is possible if we continue to work together to make it happen.