Big elections, small men  by Rannie Amiri September 2004 The world will witness a number of elections in the upcoming months, and all in some fashion will be a reflection of the success or failure of George W. Bush's post-9/11 foreign policy gambits. Both Australians and Afghans go to the polls October 9th, followed by the November 2nd United States presidential contest. Iraqi parliamentary elections, should they even take place, are tentatively scheduled for January, 2005. While each country's predicaments and issues may be unique, their leaders find themselves bound together by a single, unifying trait: how very slight they appear in relation to the decisions at hand. Let us start with the United States. Many are led to believe that the race for the White House between George Bush and John Kerry is a mandate on the "global war on terror" generally and the Iraq war in particular. American foreign policy is allegedly the central focus of the campaign, rivaling the economy. I would submit otherwise, for Kerry has made it a complete non-issue. George Bush and the Republican Party are entirely correct when they say John Kerry's ambiguous, meandering, and incoherent position on Iraq and his gripping call to "internationalize" the conflict as his sole solution are incomprehensible to both the ignorant and well-informed. Bush's stance, no matter how simplistic or near-sighted, has been readily and easily conveyed. To further dismay the anti-Bush crowd, Kerry has yet to clarify whether he would have still voted in favor of the war, if he knew then that no WMD existed. According to his national security adviser James Rubin, he would have done so "in all probability."  When asked directly, Kerry replied, he "might." At other times, his answer revolves endlessly around the dime's worth of difference between giving the President the authority to do so versus endorsing the decision. If Kerry would have inexplicably gone to war knowing there were no WMD and in the same breath paints himself as an alternative to Bush, he deserves to lose. If he cannot adequately articulate the black-and-white case over how Bush has completely bungled the war's aftermath and provide a reasonable recourse, he deserves to lose. If he chooses to be held hostage by AIPAC and the Israeli lobby in towing the pro-Sharon, pro-war line, he deserves to lose. The reason the Iraq war is a non-issue in this race is not because Kerry has miserably failed to draw any distinction from Bush, it is simply because there is none. Since the Democratic Party felt compelled to nominate a two-decade entrenched Senator whose position on Iraq runs contrary to the vast majority of party members, they have earned the right to struggle in normally Democratic-leaning states, such Minnesota and Wisconsin, just to stay within the polls' margin of error. As the 'rats furiously spin their wheels trying to keep Nader off the ballot (as if he is the primary impediment to Kerry surging ahead in the race), I cannot think of a better punishment for them than four more years of GWB. Too bad the rest of us will have to suffer because of their ineptitude. Prime Minister John Howard of Australia will be the second of the Bush allies to be tested in a general election in early October, after the failed bid of  former Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Maria Aznar. Howard is facing stiff competition from the opposition Labor Party leader Mark Latham who, unlike Kerry, has actually staked out a clear position on the war, promising to withdraw the 800 Australian troops from Iraq if elected. He also has taken strong issue with Howard's assertion that Australia has not been made a target of terror because of the Bush alliance. One would think the horrific killing of hundreds of Australians in Bali and the recent attack on the embassy in Jakarta have spoken otherwise.   On the same day, Afghanistan will be holding its first presidential election, pitting the Mayor of Kabul, Hamid Karzai, against a field of 17 other candidates. Great logistical efforts have been made for this day, including registering 10 million Afghans (in addition to 800,000 in Iran and 1.5 million in Pakistan) and importing paper ballots, ballot boxes, and pens. The Taliban effectively control much of southeastern Afghanistan and have vowed to disrupt the upcoming election, in part because women are being exhorted to vote. Add this to the effects of disgruntled warlords being stripped of authority as just occurred with Herat's Ismail Khan, a recent assassination attempt on Karzai himself, and a dearth of international observers, and who knows what consequences or legitimacy the final result will bring. Finally, there is Iraq. The first post-war election in January, 2005 will expand the nation's interim 100-member parliament to an elected body of 275. One should not need a detailed accounting of the enormous obstacles in place: daily car bombings and violence, kidnappings, the complete lack of any governmental authority in much of the Sunni Arab dominated parts of the country, and the inability to further postpone the Arab Shi'a majority's demand for open elections. Although Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's office may not be in jeopardy per se, the same cannot be said for his life.  He is confined to Baghdad's Green Zone under the protection of U.S. troops, unable to move freely about his own capital or other parts of Iraq. His popular support is negligible, regarded as a tool of the Americans planted to carry out their edicts. A former Ba'athist himself, his connections to the old regime have not borne fruit though he still relies on old Ba'ath tactics. As reported by Paul McGeough in the Sidney Morning Herald, Allawi, just days before he assumed leadership, personally executed six prisoners in a Baghdad police station.   Seymour Hersh, in his article "Plan B" (The New Yorker, June 28) quotes a former CIA case officer who described Allawi as such:  “Two facts stand out about Allawi. One, he likes to think of himself as a man of ideas; and, two, his strongest virtue is that he’s a thug.” The outcomes of these various contests all have the potential to be great, were it not for the weakness of those participating in them. For different reasons, either by character or circumstance, they are all small men.   George Bush for his narrow, evangelical, neo-conservative driven agenda. John Kerry for being incapable of moving beyond himself, laden under the weight of nineteen Senate years; bought, sold, and controlled long ago.  John Howard for failing to realize that aligning his country with the unilateralism and hegemony of the United States would inevitably bring destruction at home. Hamid Karzai, the only one in the group with a modicum of integrity, for not having the authority or resources to do much of anything outside Kabul. And Iyad Allawi for pretending to carry a big stick, yet cowering under the protection of occupiers while his country burns. Five losers, even before a single vote is cast.  Rannie Amiri is an independent observer, commentator, and exponent of issues dealing with the Arab and Islamic worlds. ACTIONS: >> email this article to a friend  >> react to this article  >> more articles Note: Please email your opinion to op-ed@majalla.org; Op-Ed articles are not peer-reviewed. New Op-Ed articles are published monthly, and as special edition when warranted