Check to have links open new windows.

Not that they'll ever admit to changing their minds, even when there's a good reason, but it looks like we've officially done a 180 now on Iraqi elections. After months of "Constitution, then elections" (which has the benefit of making sense), we're changing to "elections first" (which appears to have the benefit of being what the Iraqis want).

The only thing that really worries me about this is that I don't know to what extent the "clamor" for early elections is being orchestrated by the puppets on the IGC, who seem to be absent from Iraq as often as not. If they manage to have real elections of some sort -- with the non-trivial question of "elections for what?" still hanging out there -- that will be A Good Thing. If it turns out to be another attempt to coronate Ahmad Chalabi, well, then, it won't.

The other disturbing thought that comes to mind about this is that if we don't have the "insurgency" settled by time for the election, it will make a great opportunity for disruption. And what will the effect on the Iraqis be if we announce a date for elections then have to delay it for security reasons?