Some early results are in and while it is probably too early to see the whole picture clearly, some interesting trends *might* be occurring that would start to answer some of the questions around this election. I think it’s too early to speculate, but if this trend continues it will explain quite a bit. This trend would put an Iranian born Grand Ayatollah into power, into the top elected position in Iraq. This is a pretty smart plan on his part. I’m not sure why I didn’t think of it before. He may control half of the population to start with, and the Sunnis he knew wouldn’t be voting in any great numbers, so why not beat the Americans at their own game? Why try to fight them with guns when you can beat them at the ballot box? (This isn’t a new idea, actually. It was done once in Algeria). This helps to explain the high turnout numbers too. He told his people it was their religious duty to vote. The extent to which they really understand or believe in democracy is still unclear as they were told by their religious leader that they must vote. He knew that if he could get a good turnout he would be elected leader of Iraq. I wonder how the American public would feel about having spent 1500 lives, over 10,000 wounded, and over $150 billion to install an Iranian born Shiite Grand Ayatollah into power in Iraq? Given that Bush generated so much spin and media hype early this week around the reported high turnout and the “victory of democracy” in Iraq, which then led into his victorious address to the nation, would anybody even notice if this is the result announced next week? Or would his supporters still be cheering him as the man who got the WMD out of Iraq and ousted that major sponsor of world terrorism, Saddam Hussein? I wonder how the American media would play this. Would they probe for truth and revelation, or would they “stand behind our president in this time of war.”
I suspect the will of a people with no free will might reflect their 800 years of religious indoctrination. Really, what would anyone expect, their only experience with secularism is Saddam. Their only moral compass is Islam. The best we can hope for is to influence their constitution to allow for secularism to be an acceptable, loyal opposition and then let politics take it's natural evolution, over decades.
Let me clarify then. The party Sistani has control over looks like it will win the largest number of seats, therefore giving him the power I suggested above. The point remains the same. The attempt at dodging the point was unsuccessful.
I must confess that I’m not sure of his leanings. How pro Iranian is he? Is he susceptible to their influence? How progressive is he? He has appeared to be non-political and progressive in that sense, but he has been under the yoke of Saddam so he had to be non-political to keep his head attached to his shoulders. Who will he be as a man with great political power? I don’t have a clear impression of that.
Roughly a year old..........but probably very little has changed. <a HREF="http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0220/p01s02-woiq.html">Iran, Iraq, and two Shiite visions</a>
Shouldn't you know these things before making a post saying that a win by Al Sistani is bad for the US? I mean, you just admitted that your first post was pure uninformed speculation. Al Sistani has worked well with the US so far. I wouldn't call him an ally exactly, but he has shown he will compromise. It was highly important that he did not oppose the interim government. And based on his past actions, I wouldn't say it's a bad thing for his party to win these elections.
I don't see the problem whoever wins. If it's what the Iraqi's want, that's who they'll get. That's what we've been fighting for, right? Why do we have to insist on having an American stooge there?
I'm not sure what will happen, but I do sit at my desk with a look of genteel bemusement when officials from the Supreme Council for Islamic Revoution in Iraq talk about the secular government they're planning on...
Interesting article and very good information as usual Mango. Here’s a recent one looking at the rivalry between Zarqawi and Sistani. It’s written by a guy based in Virginia even though I found it in the Asian Times. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GA27Ak04.html There are lots of complicated dynamics there. And will the new government of Iraq have to pick a neighbour to ally with who can help defend them against their other neighbours? It seems that there are a lot of major conflicts within the Shiite community in the region, and this is in addition to the political threat that the presence of a democracy on their boarders with pose to the rulers of neighbouring countries. And then there will be the internal conflict between the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. This thing is a long way from over, and it’s very hard to predict how it will go. I suspect that the Americans will have to pull out soon, and that they’ve exhausted their resources in terms of troops and money, and so won’t be able to go back or go into any of the neighbouring countries, so counties like Iran and Syria will be able to operate relatively free of interference. They’re already starting to talk tough, and why not. What is this administration going to do about it? Unless they start drafting soldiers into the armed forces, their resources are spent. http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/02/03/bushreaxn050203.html
Maybe try rereading my post. I don’t think there is any part of this statement of yours that is accurate or even relates to what I wrote.
There is if you see one. This is an emerging picture of the outcome of the vote, IMO. If the election of Sistani’s party is hunky-dory with everyone in the US then there is no problem. It would be pretty hard for this administration to claim that it was a problem right on the heels of their trumpeting about the success of democracy there. It’s still way to early to know how this is going to play out, but this does lay a foundation for some interesting future developments.
i fail to see why this 'iranian' born thing is such a big issue. southern iraq and iran have always been very closely alligned due to shiaism. the schools of najaf and qom are obviously have very strong links. its no big deal to most people there.
You are short changing GWB's incompetence and strength of will. I suspect that we will have a military presence in Iraq, for many, many years to come. I am talking permanent military bases, providing Iraq's national defense just like we did for Saudia Arabia. The monies Iraq does not have to spend on its self defense can be diverted to rebuilding their country. Probably by the end of the year Rove et. al. will orchestrate a media event for the "pull out" of US troups, which will be a superficial lie. Perhaps the event will be when the US military no longer provides any policing force. A draft and a buildup to a war with democratic Iran also would not surprise me leading into the next set of midterm elections.
And I guess this is part of the question. This is what this administration has been saying it wanted. At least that’s been the recent party line, but is it what they really wanted? They’re pretty much backed into a corner now though because they can’t turn around and say they don’t like democracy anymore and they want their guy in instead. And all the “Bush can do no wrong” folk will have to find a way to back this too. Interesting times ahead.
And here’s one of the places where it starts to get interesting, because Sistani has been very vocal about wanting the Americans out of Iraq.
