Yes, it’s very impressive.

I just touched on this a few days ago, but I would like to revisit the Iraqi elections that were held on January 31.

These provincial elections were held in 14 of the country's 18 provinces (Kurdistan will hold separate elections, and the disputed oil-rich city of Kirkuk was deemed "too hard" at present).

These were the first post-Saddam elections that the Iraqis completely handled by themselves and if I may say so, they did an incredible job.

Contrary to what some commentators (mainly those on the left that will always refuse to acknowledge any progress in Iraq due to their hysterical opposition to the War) are claiming, participation was very good, by both voters and candidates running for office.

The voter turnout was 51%; a figure used by those that, if they do not want to see Iraq fail, than they are, at best, indifferent to their success, to show a flawed election.

However, before I go into the 51% figure, I would just like to take a moment to note that some are calling a 51% voter turnout a disappointing showing for an election in Iraq.

That’s right…an election in Iraq.

This is absolutely absurd as a democratic election in Iraq, even as recent as seven years ago, was such an unthinkable idea that no one would ever discuss the possibility of such a thing. The progress that has been made there is almost unbelievable.

But back to the 51%. This was a provincial election, not a general election where a prime minister would be voted in or out of office, thus making the stakes not nearly as high as some elections.

To put that into perspective, take a look at the turnouts for our last two Congressional elections:

2006: 41.3%

2002: 40.5%

Notice anything?

We would kill to have participation like that in this country, so can we please stop criticizing the 51%?

In regards to candidates, there were 14,412 candidates running for office, many of which were women and some overtly secular.

I think these figures can finally put to rest the ridiculous claim that Iraqis are not interested in democracy.

Then there is the issue of the Sunnis. In 2005, the Sunnis all but completely sat out the elections out of protest.

Not this time.

This time, 40% of voters in the overwhelmingly Sunni province of Anbar went to the polls; four years ago, turnout was 2%. In fact, turnout in some of the Sunni areas was as high as 65%.

This is extremely encouraging to say the least as it shows that Iraqis are starting to view themselves as Iraqis, not merely as Shia and Sunni.

In addition to the strong Iraqi participation, these elections also had something else that greatly contributed to their success.

That something? Peace.

The shocking lack of relative violence was just that…shocking.

The election featured international observers in all 712 constituencies, in 2005 terrorist attacks made that too dangerous. In addition, in 2005 more than 200 candidates were killed - this time, eight died. Four years ago, there were 299 terrorist attacks, this time there were only a small handful.

The peaceful polling was remarkable and so were the results. All the Islamic parties lost ground, especially the party associated with Moqtada al-Sadr, whose share of the vote went down from 11% to 3%.

The principal Sunni Islamic party, the Islamic Party of Iraq, was totally wiped out.

The only Islamic party to gain ground was the Dawa party of the Shia Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a man that’s proving to be an incredibly sound and capable leader.

The election is thus a big defeat for Iran, which had hoped that Shia religious parties would control the south and enable Iran to turn them into a mini Shia republic.

Sorry about, Mr. Ahmadinejad!

Were these elections perfect? No.

There were some discrepancies with voter lists that resulted in some voters being turned away at the polls and there were reports of Iraqi citizens being confused as to where to go to vote.

While these events are regrettable, based on the progress that has been already made in Iraq, I’m quite sure these issues will be ironed out for the next round of elections.

By the way, more U.S. soldiers died in accidents (12) than in combat (4) for the month of January.

Not that most of you didn't already know this, but the war is over.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John