Jim Hoagland does a column in the WaPost titled 'Mickey Mouse and the U.N.'. In it he addresses the need for immediate elections in Iraq. In summary, he writes:
This is written not to bash the United Nations but to underscore some obvious points: Elections do not have to be perfect, or even peaceful, to bring positive change. The perfect can be made the enemy of the good. When in doubt, trust the people.
This blogger couldn't agree more, so I wrote Mr. Hoagland:
Most people outside the U.S. know that immediate elections in Iraq are necessary and doable - just ask General Jay Garner, who was fired after trying to do elections within two months of his arrival. The reason we haven't had elections yet, and the reason we won't have elections until sometime in 2006, earliest, is because the Bush cartel does not want elections. Elections could mean democracy - which could mean loss of control of Iraq's vast mineral wealth. Bush/Cheney and company will be sure to fully financially colonize Iraq before allowing any elections to take place - of this we can be sure.
Similarly, if Kerry were to take office, what incentive would he have to hurry elections, knowing that his 'good' stewardship of America's newest imperial colony could only bode well for his re-election chances.
Your point that 'elections do not have to be perfect' is absolutely spot-on. We need the Post to bring this issue to the fore and make it something we can actually talk about. Of course, this is not in the Bush Administration's interests - thus we are unlikely to see such a discussion arise from the pages of the Post.
Pretending that the U.N. - especially as concerns Iraq - is anything but an enabler for U.S. interests there is misleading, at best. Whatever the U.N. election director says concerning Iraq, you can be sure it's been rubberstamped by the U.S. administration.