The problems is getting an election that can be presented as " democratic", but which will not produce up a government that is virulently hostile to the invaders.

Back in January 2004 100,000 Iraqis marched on the streets of Baghdad, and 30,000 in Basra calling for elections, and opposing the installation of a government appointed by the Occupation. At that time Iraq was a lot less chaotic than it is now.

But they weren't allowed an election, on the excuse that the existing electoral lists weren't good enough. The same lists that will be used in January (if there are in fact any elections).

The current escalating warfare will on the one hand provide an excuse to disoense with the elections, if need be, and it will ensure that a lot of people who might have voted the wrong way stay away from teh polls, either because they are boycotting the elections, or because they are scared to vote.

One way and another the objective is to ensure that there is no danger of a hostile government being elected. And yet on the basis of opinion polls in Iraq, any government that actually reflects ppopular opinion will be hostile to the Occupation. (Here's a poll carried out back in June, by the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority, which reported that An overwhelming majority, about 80 percent, also say they have "no confidence" in either the U.S. civilian authorities or Coalition forces.

And here is a piece by Naommi Klein in today's Guardian - Die, then vote. This is Falluja : "Iraqi elections were postponed to save Bush. That led to today's carnage."