Known and Unknown - Donald Rumsfeld [363]
Al-Qaida understood that the fight to establish a free, self-governing Iraq in the heart of the Arab world would be a critical threat to their cause. For some time prior to the elections, enemies of a free Iraq led by al-Qaida put up posters with messages such as “YOU VOTE. YOU DIE.” Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian militant who had proclaimed himself leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, declared “a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy.” He called the elections a sham meant to deceive the Iraqi people and subjugate them to American puppets. “Anyone who tries to help set up this system is part of it,” he warned.17 Zarqawi claimed that anyone participating in elections was an apostate. The insurgents knew what a powerful threat the elections posed to their cause.
We set an ambitious schedule for three elections in 2005. The first election, which if successful promised to be a watershed event in the Arab world, was scheduled for January. Iraqis would vote to fill 275 seats in their national legislature. The legislature would then draft an Iraqi constitution. In the second vote, the Iraqi people would approve or reject the constitution in a referendum. And finally, the Iraqi people would elect a free Iraqi government under their new constitution.
As the first elections approached in January 2005, commentators across the world predicted disaster.18 Foreign affairs specialists called for postponement of the elections in light of the terrorists’ threats.19 There was a possibility that many voters, fearing for their lives and the lives of their families, would not show up at polling places. Brent Scowcroft, who had been national security adviser for President Ford and later for President George H. W. Bush, as well as chairman of President George W. Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, warned that the elections had “the great potential for deepening the conflict” in Iraq.20 Others worried that the lack of participation by minority Sunnis, who threatened to boycott the election, would undermine its legitimacy.
Like President Bush, I was determined that the elections go forward. I was under no illusions that free elections would quickly solve all of Iraq’s problems, but delaying the vote because of the intimidation of the terrorists would give them a major psychological victory and set back our efforts to help the Iraqis create a representative, sovereign government for themselves.
Iraq’s first election day was on Sunday, January 30, 2005, ten days after President Bush’s second inauguration. How many, I wondered, would show up at polling stations despite knowing they were risking their lives by voting? With Baghdad seven hours ahead of our time, preliminary reports were already coming in when I turned on the cable news early that Sunday morning.
There was no need for detailed expert analysis to understand the historical consequence of what was taking place across Iraq. The televised images said it all. There were long lines at polling places. Iraqi men dressed in their best clothes were standing proudly as they waited to cast their votes. Some brought their children to watch a piece of history unfold. Voters had to dip their index finger in indelible purple ink to assure that no one voted more than once—and these purple fingers became a proud symbol of participation in a free and fair election. No doubt citizens were emboldened by the highly visible presence of the Iraqi security forces that American forces had trained and equipped. They stayed at their posts and held their ground. Iraqi and coalition forces had imposed extensive security measures to try to prevent terrorist attacks, and their efforts were largely successful.
Over the course of the day, fear gave way to elation. Men and women danced in the streets and waved their purple fingers in the air.21 “It’s like a wedding. I swear to God, it’s a wedding for all of Iraq,” the director of one polling station in a Sunni neighborhood in Baghdad rejoiced. “No one has ever witnessed this before.