Ready or not seems to be the Bush administration’s motto for the promised elections in Iraq. President Bush and Ayad Allawi, Iraq’s interim prime minister, vowed together in the White House Rose Garden that free elections in Iraq would go forward in January as scheduled. Britain’s Tony Blair chimed in with the “hope” that they would take place as planned in January.

Mr. Bush acknowledged the “persistent violence” in parts of the country. Mr. Allawi admitted that the elections “may not be perfect.” And U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the violence might be too great for elections to be held in 20 to 25 percent of the country. Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister for National Security Barham Salah, sounded more iffy. He told the Associated Press: “Hypothetically, if you have a location in which the security situation is not conducive to holding elections … then you end up with the question, ‘Shall we delay or hold the entire process in hostage to that particular district?’ That will be a bridge that we will have to cross when we come to it.”

The violence shows no sign of lessening. On the contrary, most predictions are for increasing violence as January approaches. Car bombs, snipers and mortar and rocket attacks are killing Iraqi citizens almost daily as they line up to take jobs with the police or try sign up with the national guard. Voters at the polls would risk the same fate.

Major cities including Fallujah and Ramadi are controlled by insurgents. If the elections can’t be held in Sunni areas and if Shiite followers of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani boycott the vote elsewhere, the results could be badly skewed. A credible vote is essential if Iraq is to achieve the American dream of becoming a free and democratic model for reform throughout the Middle East.

The purpose of the planned elections is to choose a 275-seat assembly to draft a permanent constitution to be presented to the Iraqi electorate in a nationwide referendum by next Oct. 15. If the constitution is adopted, a second general election is planned for two months later for a democratic government that would take control by Jan. 15, 2006. Holding to that optimistic schedule is the given reason for efforts to stick to the plan to hold the first elections in January. But President Bush doubtless also has the U.S. elections on Nov. 2 in mind. His hopes for re-election may hinge on persuading American voters that, as he keeps saying, Iraq is on the path to democracy and stability.

But the question arises whether a partial or questionable election will really help Iraq along a path toward democracy or whether it will further inflame the insurgency and prolong the violence.

A further credibility question has been raised by Ayatollah Sistani. He has expressed worry over moves by some ?migr? Iraqi politicians to avoid a showdown to parcel out the seats among the six major political parties and create a single unified slate. The Financial Times, in an editorial headlined “Sistani Is Right,” argues that this maneuver would exclude Sunni nationalists and Shiite insurgents and result in a referendum rather than a contested election, leading to internal alienation and widening the insurgency.

With President Bush adamantly opposing delay and unwilling to oppose a rigged election, it may be up to the U.S. Congress to step in and ensure a free and fair election even if that means a delay until stability is achieved. While the Constitution puts the president in charge of foreign affairs, Congress can intervene through its power of the purse. And the time to act is now, while it’s still in session, rather than when Iraq is up against a January deadline.