"Elections" in a couple of days

Arab candidates running in Kirkuk`s provincial election have pulled out of the race in protest at the government`s decision to grant displaced Kurds the right to vote, the head of the Arab electoral list told AFP Monday

[...]

The boycott by oil-rich Kirkuk`s Arab population was the long-awaited fallout from the January 16th decision by the Iraqi government and IEC to permit Kurds expelled from the city under Saddam Hussein to take part in the national and provincial vote.
  Turkish Press article

All in all, a highly confusing picture. It’s incontrovertible that the United States has consistently delayed elections for two years, and would have done so longer had there been no opposition; it’s equally clear however, that the winner of these “democratic” elections will cooperate with the occupiers and lend, for most Americans if not for most Iraqis, an air of democratic legitimacy to the new Iraqi puppet government. But Iraqis can be forgiven if, after all of this, they understand as little of true democracy as Americans, who don’t seem to have understood that you impeach presidents who lie to get you into an illegal war, you don’t re-elect them.
  Empire Notes post

Jack Fairweather reports for the Telegraph from Baghdad on a meeting held by the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) that instructs candidates on how to survive the elections. He writes: "The instructions are simple - avoid public places and do not reveal your identity, the cleric advised. Most candidates should stay at home as much as possible, he added."

Security is still so bad in Iraq that guerrillas were able to strike a national guard base near the airport with mortar fire Monday. As a result the air traffic controllers at Baghdad airport turned back both of that day's Royal Jordanian Airlines flights. RJA is the only commercial carrier that flies into Baghdad, last I knew. Ironically, the inability of the planes to land stranded Iraqi Minister of Defense Hazem Shaalan in Amman. When the Minister of Defense can't even fly to his own country because the area around the airport is in flames, you know that is a bad sign.

[...]

The US military is planning to keep 120,000 troops in Iraq for the next two years, according to Lt. Gen. James J. Lovelace, Jr. He admitted that the number could fluctuate depending on the circumstances. I was saying before that I did not think it wise to announce a strict timetable for US military withdrawal from Iraq, lest the appointment of a date certain become, itself, an occasion for instability and violence. I think the troop levels should be drawn down steadily, without an announcement until perhaps the very end. But this announcement of a 24-month-long continued military presence is also unwise. Why would Lt. Gen. Lovelace say this? How can he know what the will of the new parliament will be, once it meets in mid to late February? Once there is an elected government, no matter how flawed the elections, the US will be in Iraq at the pleasure of the representatives of the Iraqi people. I think it is unfortunate that the US is saying anything at all about long-term plans just before the election.
  Juan Cole post

I don't think we're all laboring under the same illusions. General Lovelace probably knows that the U.S. has no intention of allowing Iraq's "new" government to call the shots. The U.S. doesn't consider itself anywhere in the world at the pleasure of anyone other than itself.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.