The whole point of your post was that getting some Iranian born dude elected would make Bush or the US public angry. My response is that it wouldn't. We have been working with this guy since day 1, and he has been willing to compromise. Now my question is, since this guy has been shown to be somewhat moderate and friendly to the US, will the people who continually bash Bush admit that maybe their horror predictions won't come true?
Well there you go again assuming the very worst. Yes, he wants the Americans out...eventually. So does Dubya. Sistani urged ALL Iraqis to vote in the past election. The more that voted, the better the US occupation looked. The US and Sistani have several common insterests.
Cohen's right. This is a waste of space. Would the administration prefer a secular regime. Of course. So what. Does that mean they won't work with Sistani? Obviously not. Would they like one totalitarian regime to replace the one we just removed? No. Who would. Interesting that Grizzled is now complaining that Syria and Iran will be unchecked, lol. Surely Canada and the UN can handle them, right? Iran is not a democracy. Its a gangsterocracy...
Dubya doesn't want us out. He wants to permanently occupy Iraq so we can control thier oil and oppress them Muslims.
Well, no, that’s not the position I was taking. I was asking the question. This guy is not the US backed candidate and he has in the past repeatedly called for the US to leave Iraq. Now if your fine with this guy and are prepared to accept and respect the democratic results of this election, then fine. There is no problem. The fact that he was born in Iran poses some interesting questions, which Mango’s article shed quite a bit of light on. Consider this more of a discussion thread as this situation evolves. The results are still very early yet, in fact, and we don’t actually know for sure yet that this guy will even win, but it’s starting to look like he will and it will be interesting to see what he does if/when he wins. Will he call for the turfing of the US immediately, or will he wait through a transition period? Will he reach out to Iran to make some deals? It is the country of his birth and he speaks the language, but he may be a rival to the current rulers in Iran. It’s a complicated situation he’s in and it’ll be interesting to see how he plays it. My guess is that he’ll cut the strings and kick the US out asap. That’s what he’s been calling for so that’s what he has a mandate to do, and by kicking the US out he’ll eliminate the reason for a lot of the terrorist groups to be there, and he’ll increase the incentive for other countries to help Iraq make it, once it’s clear that they’ll be helping Iraq and not the US. He’s got a complicated, complicated game of chess to play though, with many, many major variables.
This guy may cooperate with the US government and fully support all the US moves in the Middle East in the future. But he may also demand US withdraw all its troops say within six month, what would Bush do in this case? Do you guys have a good suggestion for him?
I don't have fears of an Iran controlled Iraq. A pro-Iran government might declare itself so in order to provide counter balance against total American influence, but in the long term, their interests will conflict as they vie for dominant ideological status in the region. Just like the Soviets and Chinese which needed a border dispute to spark bubbling tensions.
and let the Sunni pogroms begin!!! Bring it on! Democracy Iraqi Style! I can just hear W now "We brought them democracy but they failed to get that whole love of freedom thing."
Another interesting outcome of the election. Can't cite to the article. I believe it was the paper NYT, Apparently the Kurds used the election process to pull a surprise. They did a companion referendum and asked the voters in their areas if they wanted an independent Kurdistan. The refrendum was 10 to 1 for independence. Their principle leader has said he will see independence "soon". It isn't very likely to be all happy democracy as Dubya and many of the pro war folks fantasize about. I know Sadam was bad. Even if a civil war would kill a few hundred thousand or so more, still worth it.
I’m not complaining. I’m pointing out the reality. These are the things that come up and bite you on the butt when you fall into simplistic thinking, like the kind this administration has been plagued by. And you have in your othe post identified one of the key issues that this development raises. I believe as you do that the objective of this administration was to increase its power and influence in the ME. But what Sistani may very well do is tell the US to GTFO, pronto. The US could very well end up with much less influence in the area than if Saddam was still in power. If their real objective was to bring democracy to Iraq, then they should be very happy that their mission has been accomplished and leave quickly and in good order. If democracy was not their main objective, however, then they will balk and try to find excuses to refuse to leave, and they'll show themselves to be liars once again. They’ve pretty well boxed themselves in on this one though. If Sistani says “git”, they better scoot quickly and obediently. He is, after all, the guy all those brave Iraqis risked their lives to elect in the exercising of their free and democratic rights. I can’t imagine why Sistani would want the US to stay for any more than a very short time either. They are a heat score there and have brought much of this war with them, chasing them. The sooner they are gone the sooner that goes with them, but I suspect that he’ll need help from someone as there are too many forces in the area that have something to gain by him failing. This is all, of course, why Bush Sr. wisely chose not to go into Iraq. If intervention is only going to make things worse, then you’re not helping. You’re hurting. This may be a window of opportunity here though. IMO, Sistani (or his representative) should call a meeting with the UN and the surrounding nations as soon as he takes power (presuming his party is elected). These countries have to be part of the solution; otherwise they’ll be part of the problem, perhaps an insurmountable part. You have to create a win win scenario. There has to be something in it for them for them to leave Iraq alone. Maybe the fact alone that a stable Iraq with a Sistani government would keep the US and it’s influence out of the area would be enough? Sistani has some very tricky diplomacy ahead of him I think.
This is interesting. There has been a long rivalry between these peoples, and I have no personal familiarity with the area so I have no real sense of how deep that is or whether it would preclude the two becoming one state some day. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but there has, since at least the time of Lawrence of Arabia, been a will to unify the Arab world, BUT, I believe that Persia, Iran, is not considered part of that world? Therefore the threat of Iran exerting undue influence on Iraq is not significant. Is this essentially your point? How far off am I?
If the Sunnis and the Shiites have a civil war and the Kurds use this as an opportunity to pull away and it turns into a mess, possibly with Turkey ,or less probably the US with, of course, "Iraqi" troops fighting the Kurds, Would it all have been worth it? I sometimes wonder if there is some sort of upper limit to the number of dead Iraqis before some of the more stubborn war supporters would have doubts as to the desirability of the war.
This is precisely why the US has built permanent military bases in Iraq. We are staying for the long haul.
The reality that the US won't be checking Syria and Iran. No offense, but I haven't seen to much from you supporting US power projection in the Middle East, lol. Agreed. If an elected government asks them to leave then they should do it. As pointed out earlier I believe you're confused. Sistani was not up for election. I believe he led the coalition that invaded Iraq in '91. He did not remove Saddam at the time because Arabs were grumbling and the coalition was threatening to split. This is a win win scenario for Bush. The security situation will get under control, we will leave, Iraq will have had an election, Saddam will be gone, all those who say its for oil or bases will look silly. As for glynch, its pretty amusing that you blather on about self determination and democracy and then claim that it'd be better for Iraq to be under Saddam's boot than Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites getting to choose their own course. What a joke you've become.
I think that could play in the political process in the Iraqi Suuni mind if Iraq can get that far. I believe that during Saddam's rule the Shiite Iraqis were imposed with both the Arab and Shiite worlds. Iran provided indirect assistance before, but being free from Saddam has opened the possibility of pursuing their own nationalistic agenda. Now, that assistance is neither needed nor solicited. If civil war doesn't erupt, the fundamentalist rule of law won't be allowed to expose itself. Theocratic control would be unlikely because the 3 different ethnicities would promote a secular and compromising coalition government. Given Iran's emerging youth movement, that would be enough to cause differing opinions between the two states and respective clergy. If civil war erupts, and populations are oppressed and terrorized, authoritative fundamentalism might resume course like it did in the 70's. In the case where the Shiite majority prevails, some shrewd Shiite leaders might use Iran to consolodate power, but eventually those leaders will threaten Iran's clerics. Iraq was a regional power and it still has the resources to do so. A shiite controlled majority or even a civil war won't change that. The best scenario for Iraq's neighbors would be a prolonged and costly civil war. Whoever controls Iraq and remains in control will automatically make itself a regional power. They will not play second fiddle to Iran.
I'm confused by this thread... this election, if I'm not mistaken, was for a National Assembly, not to select Iraq's leadership. This assembly will be made up of all those groups who receive votes in the election -- seats proportional to the number of votes they get. The assembly will then draft a constitution and elections on the country's actual leadership will then take place. So, Sistani's group may get a lot of seats on the assembly and can influence the make up of the constitution (which will still have to be ratified), but they will not lead. Is this right or am I missing something?
I guess we’re agreeing then. Good. We agree here too. I’m being too loose with my language. I’m assuming that Sistani will exert considerable influence over these elected representatives but he himself is not up for election. I guess it remains to be seen how all that works too so the scenarios I’m proposing are not things that are likely to happen next week when these results come in. The would happen at some point in the future when Sistani’s authority becomes more formal, or at least clearer. He did make commitments but I also think he saw that it would be a dog’s breakfast if they went in. There are just too many competing forces and the risk of the situation descending into chaos was too great. I don’t have a reference for this. It’s just my memory. If this happens I think we will be happy to look wrong. What Bush’s intention was to begin with would still be questionable, but I’d let him take the graceful exit if it means a positive outcome in Iraq.
To what extent they will have a strong leadership position at this point is a good question. I’m extrapolating to a future time when his power would be more formalized, or at least clearly established. So I am taking a long view, but I’m suggesting that the outcomes I’m musing about could lead from a clear victory by Sistani’s party in this election. I believe that the US can’t be asked to leave until January 2006 and in the interim the constitution will be drafted by the people who were elected in this election, so that’s a whole layer of complexity that has been missed in this round of forecasting. This may well be too much speculation too soon, but forecasting the trajectory of events is an important part of planning ahead and risk assessment and mitigation. The year before the next elections where Sistani could claim more complete power could be used to broker deals informally. There is also time for other intervening events, and something significant is sure to happen. At that time everyone will rework the scenarios. But the trend line at this time, from the early results, is one that points to an Iraq largely controlled by Sistani, and this also answers some of the questions around the surprisingly high turnout at the last election.
