Perhaps most important, if seldom mentioned, the Iraqi people want the elections. This is born out by polls conducted in Iraq by the International Republican Institute (IRI), a nonprofit organization founded in 1983 to advance democracy and the rule of law in other countries.
Among IRI findings is that the Iraqi people are deeply concerned about security, as one can imagine, and are fairly evenly split on the question of whether they're headed in the right direction. It is, after all, difficult to remember that your original purpose was to create democracy when you're up to your waders in insurgents and explosions.
Nevertheless, the pessimism Americans are supposed to feel as they absorb daily reports of killings, car bombs and sectarian strife isn't shared by most Iraqis. When asked whether they view civil war and sectarian strife as likely, 68.8 percent say "unlikely," 14.8 percent say "always possible but not likely," and only 7.8 percent say "likely."
One of the camouflaged conclusions in the CIA reports otherwise so bloated with portent is that the best way to rid Iraq of terrorism is to hold an election.
In the relevant passages from the Times story, officials acknowledged that resilient Iraqis have made political progress, but predicted that "the security situation was more likely to get worse . unless there were marked improvements soon on the part of the Iraqi government, in terms of its ability to assert authority and to build the economy."
Can there be a better argument for elections held sooner rather than later?
If one were sipping from a glass half-full, here's how the Times report might have read instead: Once elections are held and an Iraqi government is able to assert authority and build the economy, the security situation is likely to improve, with less violence and fewer sectarian clashes.
That doesn't sound so bad, unless you prefer failure.