Questions for Mort

Mort Kondracke, on delaying the Iraqi elections:

A delay would only reward the savage insurgents who want to reduce Iraq to utter chaos. What really counts is what happens after the election - whether majority Shiites treat minority Sunnis well and whether the Iraqi security forces fight for their country.

I have a few questions here, fell free to answer them.

1.) Is forcing a country to have an election it does not seem prepared for, especially when a large group of people are afraid to vote, is that supposed to be seen as a defeat for insurgents? Do you think they really care about whether the government is elected or not? Don't you think they will still cry fowl at the whole thing, continue to see it as supported by the U.S., and continue to bomb the heck out of anything associated with us?

2.) So the Sunnis probably won't be out voting in large numbers, making their already minority status even more obvious after the elections. What is being done by the Bush administration to ensure they have fair representation in the face of this?

3.) This question actually came first to my head as I read this. Kondracke says it is important "majority Shiites treat minority Sunnis well." Again, what steps are being taken to assure this will happen? It seems clear that Allawi, a Shiite, is all for pushing the election in spite of the possibility of that the Sunni's won't be able to safely cast a ballot. Won't the Sunni insurgents paint this as a power grab, and continue their assault on security in Iraq?

These are the things that should be addressed when you talk about the insurgents winning by postponing elections. By pushing them relentlessly forward, it seems that no one may win, especially if the end result becomes a civil war.