[oceanview]

taking a worst case scenario (I am not predicting this will happen, only suggesting it could as a worst case) - the election itself may well be the trigger for the civil war.

imagine what the US media will do with that story. too many freepers in the wake of GWBs win have this impression that public support for the iraq effort is at 70%. it isn't. some watershed event, like an election turning into a mess and blood in the streets - could tip US public support for the iraq effort towards an unrecoverable negative view. if that happens, then all the people here talking about a delay "rewarding terrorism", will really have given the terrorists a big win.

[pete anderson]

An election could spark a civil war but more than likely it will cause distrust in the American Effort. Stable the Economy, win the war, let people feel secure and open up the process to all parties.

[pete anderson]

Most importantly, An Election in January is a Short Term Solution for a Long Term Problem and will likely extended the Duration of the Current Problem.

We have lost way to many American Boys to establish a sham democracy and extend the situation losing more American Boys.

[Uncledave]

Good debate.

A couple of points.

1)Things probably seem worse than they are. The same worries were in force about elections in Afghanistan and it turned out OK. I also imagine Afghanistan had some extra challenges in getting their elections going compared to Iraq: lower literacy rate, less developed media and infrastructure to get the word out and people to the polls, etc.

2) I'm no expert in security but I'm confident securing discrete polling places is well within the capabilities of our forces.

3) We can count on improvised bombs and terrorists causing mischief throughout the next few years. (Heck, Israel saw bombs going of weekly and had no problems with doing an election). There is no ideal time to do this.

4) We announced the elections. You can guess that the election results will lead to all sorts of problems. But postponing the elections will lead to *certain* problems: loss of face and credibility we follow through, emboldening terrorists, emoboldening anti-American media, etc.

The elections must go on.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

an election turning into a mess and blood in the streets - could tip US public support for the iraq effort towards an unrecoverable negative view.

There you are assuming that American journalism cares about Iraqis, a patently absurd proposition. American journalism promotes the number of American combat deaths as a way to disrespect President Bush.

The trouble with promoting the story of terrorist attacks on a 1/30/05 election is that the casualties and the perpetrators would all be Iraqis. If they could blame the US for the casualties that would be one thing, but the election will be conducted under the aegis of the Iraqi Provisional Authority and the Coalition troops will get relatively little blame for any Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence concomitant to it.

And that is why, ultimately, this whole discussion is foolish for Americans to engage in - it is an Iraqi decision in the first place. Bush made the original decision in setting the date, but only the Iraqi Interim Authority could convince Bush to change it. And, IMHO, the Iraqis will come to the same conclusion as Congressman Billybob about that. The election will politically defeat the terrorists, in that any murders they commit on that day will ever after be counted as murders rather than fighting the coalition.