Iraq Election

[varwoche]

As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for. Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is arraying a party to oppose Allawi. Chalabi, friend of the neo-cons, has been resurrected as part of this outfit. I suspect that the mullahs in Iran may be starting to see some of the benefits of this democracy business. article

A cleric with links to Iran leads the candidate list of a powerful coalition of Iraq's mainstream Shiite Muslim groups for next month's election, an aide said Friday. The list also includes former Pentagon favorite Ahmad Chalabi and some followers of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim the head of Iraq's largest Shiite party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution would stand to take a central position in the assembly that will create Iraq's next government and constition, if the coalition takes most of the parliament seats in the Jan. 30 vote.

 

[aerocontrols]

The people of Iraq may elect the leaders they want instead of the ones we want?

Oh, no!

 

[Hutch]

The people of Iraq may elect the leaders they want instead of the ones we want?

Oh, no!

Well, riddle me this..I asked this on another thread and it died (hopefully I don't kill this one)

Iraq has an election, which is, despite the violence, considered fair and free by the monitors and the duly elected Iraqis (mostly Shia'a) take their places and being the task of Government.

....And the first actions they take are (1) Closer political and military ties with Iran and (2) A formal request that US troops, unless under the direct command of the United Nations, leave Iraq in the next 90 days.

Will we do it? I wonder.......

 

[Ziggurat]

As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for. Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is arraying a party to oppose Allawi. Chalabi, friend of the neo-cons, has been resurrected as part of this outfit. I suspect that the mullahs in Iran may be starting to see some of the benefits of this democracy business. article

I am continually amazed by the assumption of many people that because Sistani shares the same nominal religion as the Iranian mullahs, that he is therefore their natural ally. But he is not. He is, by nature, an opponent. He's old-school Shia, the kind that don't put direct political power in the hands of clerics (in this sense, the mullahs of Iran are not fundamentalists). And the rise of Najaf as a Shia holy city (which Saddam kept a lid on) poses a serious challenge to the religious legitimacy of the Iranians, who want Qom to be the preeminent center of Shia religious thought, so that they can control it (and warp it). And lastly, of course, the Iraqi Shia are arabs, while the Iranian Shia are persians - they don't even share a language. Iran is indeed trying to extend its influence into the Shia population of Iraq, with mixed results (in particular, Sadr's failed uprising), and this does pose a serious risk to our interests. But Sistani is not the threat here, and he's not an Iranian toady.

 

[varwoche]

Re: Re: Iraq Election

I am continually amazed by the assumption of many people that because Sistani shares the same nominal religion as the Iranian mullahs, that he is therefore their natural ally. But he is not. He is, by nature, an opponent. He's old-school Shia, the kind that don't put direct political power in the hands of clerics (in this sense, the mullahs of Iran are not fundamentalists).

Perhaps, but not that simple. The cleric who Sistani has chosen to lead the ticket -- Abdul Aziz al-Hakim -- was based in Iran. While it's possible this was motivated by survival (due to Saddam), the relationship w/Iran can't be entirely discounted.

In addition, Chalabi was purported to have a clandestine relationship w/Iran.

But regardless the relationship w/Iran, these clerics have seen fit to form an opposition to Allawi (who is also Shia).

 

[headscratcher4]

The people of Iraq may elect the leaders they want instead of the ones we want?

Oh, no!

Indeed, that is the thing about democracy. We will have gone to war to over throw a Stalinist dictator who murdered his own people, made war on his neighbors and who wanted to have weapons of Mass distruction as well as supressed many of the basic freedoms of his people (but in the nominal guise of a secular state), only to have the people replace the dictorship with a democratically elected, religiously orriented theocracy that will deny many basic rights, likely force women to wear the veil and limit thier role in society, ban western media, discourage western cultural connections, etc.

It will be what the people want...the problem is, me thinks that isn't what Bush/Rummy/Dick and Wolfie envisioned when they decided to go in... also, it will be a little hard to explain how we are bringing democracy to the middle east when we are going to be in almost instant conflict with a Shiite government (regardless of how they look or don't look to the Iranians for inspiration). The bottom line is that another Iranian-type regime in the middle east (while possibly good for Democracy) can't be very encouraging for the US.

Hard to imagine how you explain to a US parent that their child died in Iraq so that a fundumentalist religous scholar who likely fundumentally hates/distrusts the US to power....

It seems to me that next to having Saddam still in power (and I don't think this war was necessary, but am glad he's gone), this is about as bad a senario as a US policy thinker could have imagined.

 

[aerocontrols]

Well, riddle me this..I asked this on another thread and it died (hopefully I don't kill this one)

Iraq has an election, which is, despite the violence, considered fair and free by the monitors and the duly elected Iraqis (mostly Shia'a) take their places and being the task of Government.

....And the first actions they take are (1) Closer political and military ties with Iran and (2) A formal request that US troops, unless under the direct command of the United Nations, leave Iraq in the next 90 days.

Will we do it? I wonder.......

As to what we will do, I cannot say. I know what actions I would support, however. When an elected government tells us to get out, we should go. When an elected government forms close ties with one of our enemies, we treat it like any other government that forms close ties with our enemies.

I doubt that (2) will happen, but I'm not sure that (1) would be to the detriment of our foreign policy objectives. One of the goals here is to spread democracy, after all.

 

[aerocontrols]

Indeed, that is the thing about democracy. We will have gone to war to over throw a Stalinist dictator who murdered his own people, made war on his neighbors and who wanted to have weapons of Mass distruction as well as supressed many of the basic freedoms of his people (but in the nominal guise of a secular state), only to have the people replace the dictorship with a democratically elected, religiously orriented theocracy that will deny many basic rights, likely force women to wear the veil and limit thier role in society, ban western media, discourage western cultural connections, etc.

Those ideas are losing strength in Iran. Forgive me if I don't think the Iranians will be able to export them to Iraq.

 

[headscratcher4]

Those ideas are losing strength in Iran. Forgive me if I don't think the Iranians will be able to export them to Iraq.

And yet, the regime holds on, and, indeed, may have gained some strength with the EU and the US demanding that they not go nuclear...nationalism can trump the desire for satelite dishes.

Don't get me wrong, I understand completely that those attitudes are losing strength in Iran (especially among young people without any hope) and the Iranian democracy, so far, has been unable to absorb that discontent because, among other reasons, of the strength of the religious conservatives.

I belive that Iranian democracy has a chance to devlelop into a stable, law-based regime...but it has taken 30 years...and, the democratic movers in Iran are not the ones actively influencing the Iraqi Shiites, the anti-American clerics are.

I am not afraid of democracy in Iraq. The Shiites represent the majority of the population, it is inevitable in a democracy that Shiites ultimately will prevail...especially in a system based on clans, tribes, ethnic affliations, etc. We will have to live with it, we should live with it, and if they ask us to go, we should go. My only point is that a fundumentalist theocracy in Iraq (even a democratic one) will likely not give US policy makers much comfort. It isn't the vision of a democratic middle-east able to, for example live with Isreal, that Wolfie and the neo-cons envisioned.

And, it brings home a fundumetal challenge to the US, in the fact that democracy is a messy business and may not deliver the results you think best. Yes, we will have to live with it, but, here's the question...given Bush, the lack of planning and foresight that has thus far gone into this campaign, do you think the Administration can live with it....

Bush standing up before the American people and telling them honestly -- well we'd have hoped for a different outcome, but the Iraqi's want us to leave now and the UN to come in, so our job is done....? It is just hard for me to see.

In addition, it seems that this election, under these circumstances, is going to inevitably mean a civil war in the country and maybe even a break-up of the country. Again, that may not be a bad thing, but it certainly wasn't part of the Administration's strategic vision for the Middle east...just thinking here.

PS -- if it was, they should have been more forthright with the American people and done a better job laying out what could happen than they have....

 

[aerocontrols]

I am not afraid of democracy in Iraq. The Shiites represent the majority of the population, it is inevitable in a democracy that Shiites ultimately will prevail...especially in a system based on clans, tribes, ethnic affliations, etc. We will have to live with it, we should live with it, and if they ask us to go, we should go. My only point is that a fundumentalist theocracy in Iraq (even a democratic one) will likely not give US policy makers much comfort. It isn't the vision of a democratic middle-east able to, for example live with Isreal, that Wolfie and the neo-cons envisioned.

I think that's a very simplistic description of what we want. The vision of a democratic middle-east is one in which the opposition party doesn't allow the governing party the luxury of blaming everything that goes poorly on the Israelis, or on the United States, etc. There are reasons why the opposition in Iran tends to be less anti-American and anti-Israeli than the Iranian government. (and why the opposition in Fraudi Arabia tends to be more anti-American and anti-Israeli than the Fraudi gov.)

I expect that if an anti-American government takes over in Iraq, the opposition will be pro-American. If pro-American groups manage to hang onto power in Iraq, the opposition will be anti-American. In any case, there will be one side, at least, whose interests will be hurt by allowing the other side to blame us for everything and use the mechanism of state power to indoctrinate their people to hate us. Under Saddam, that only really existed in the Kurdish areas, and only because we exercised military power to support their autonomy.

And, it brings home a fundumetal challenge to the US, in the fact that democracy is a messy business and may not deliver the results you think best. Yes, we will have to live with it, but, here's the question...given Bush, the lack of planning and foresight that has thus far gone into this campaign, do you think the Administration can live with it....

Bush standing up before the American people and telling them honestly -- well we'd have hoped for a different outcome, but the Iraqi's want us to leave now and the UN to come in, so our job is done....? It is just hard for me to see.

It's not so hard for me.

In addition, it seems that this election, under these circumstances, is going to inevitably mean a civil war in the country and maybe even a break-up of the country. Again, that may not be a bad thing, but it certainly wasn't part of the Administration's strategic vision for the Middle east...just thinking here.

Civil war in Iraq is inevitable, it seems to you?

 

[rikzilla]

I'm no Pollyanna on this issue. There's alot to go wrong, and again democracy is messy business, even here.

However, I don't see the sky falling either. Undoubtedly the Shia will make up the lion's share of a democratic government...but that's to be expected. But I do not expect the new gov't to seek our withdrawal right away. Simply put the new gov't will need us until the situation is more stable and government forces are trained up and viable against the insurgency.

Civil war? I don't see it as inevitable. The Sunnis are a dangerously vulnerable minority in Iraq, and most Sunnis are not seeking civil war. So the Sunni civil warrior is a tiny minority of a minority. Not much future there if you are bent on a war you cannot possibly win.

Now, as far as a democratic theocracy...or a tyranny of the majority....well, isn't that what the Iraqi constitution is supposed to prevent?? The constitution will frame the system and protect minority opinion, free expression, etc..etc... Without those protections Iraqis would be at the mercy of a popular dictatorship. However, I doubt that will be allowed to happen.

-z

 

[Thumper]

It's even more interesting:

60% (or so) of the population is Arab Shiia
20% (or so) of the population is Arab Sunni
20% (or so) of the population is Kurdish Sunni

What is going to be more important to the Iraqis? Religion or nationality?

 

[epepke]

Well, riddle me this..I asked this on another thread and it died (hopefully I don't kill this one)

Iraq has an election, which is, despite the violence, considered fair and free by the monitors and the duly elected Iraqis (mostly Shia'a) take their places and being the task of Government.

....And the first actions they take are (1) Closer political and military ties with Iran and (2) A formal request that US troops, unless under the direct command of the United Nations, leave Iraq in the next 90 days.

Will we do it? I wonder.......

I don't have a problem with that, personally, or as a US citizen. If Iraqi Arabs and Iranian Persians decided that they could get along, that would be wet-dream time. Almost as good as if Israelis and Palesitnians had a big group hug.

 

[shecky]

If Iraqi Arabs and Iranian Persians decided that they could get along, that would be wet-dream time.

Some fetishes are just wrong!

 

[Hutch]

I'm no Pollyanna on this issue. There's alot to go wrong, and again democracy is messy business, even here......

....The constitution will frame the system and protect minority opinion, free expression, etc..etc... Without those protections Iraqis would be at the mercy of a popular dictatorship. However, I doubt that will be allowed to happen.

-z

Pollyanna, can you come out and play....Pollyanna....