WOW !! ...UN team snubs US plan, sides with Sistani in elections dispute..

[Postman]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0212/dailyUpdate.html?s=mes

In a nod to Sistani's rising influence, UN diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi announced the decision after a two-hour visit to the reclusive cleric's home in the holy Shiite city of Najaf, 90 miles south of Baghdad. Mr. Brahimi said that Sistani "is insistent on holding the elections and we are with him on this 100 percent because elections are the best means to enable any people to set up a state that serves their interest."

[fob]

1. Can Mr Brahimi come back to the US and certify elections here?

nt

[Aristus]

2. What? They don't trust the B*sh Republicans to run a fair election????

Now where would they get a fool idea like that?

[MidwestTransplant]

3. I am actually sort of with the Admin on this.

Direct elections in Iraq, especially now, will lead to Civil War. Count on it.

[Postman]

4. I disagree.

Opening up gov't to all can only lessen that possibility.

Continuing the IGC with Bremmer as chief-sock-puppet-in-charge will only inflame them even more.

[Zero Gravitas]

7. its a lose/lose situation

if we have direct elections of those who will write the constitution ,they will be majority Shiites who will, guess what, make sure that the Shiite majority will have control of an independent Iraq. The Sunis and Kurds won't like that and it could well lead to civil war.

If we don't have pre-constitution elections the Shiite power will be diluted (and this is no doubt why we don't want elections now, who wants another Iranian style Shiite theocracy?) and they will not be happy about that which could well lead to a civil war.

All Chimpy & co are trying to do is keep a lid on the situation until after the US elections after which they don't care what happens in Iraq so long as the oil keeps flowing.

[sidwill]

8. Agreed

Any way you slice it Iraq will descend into a post Tito Yugoslavia type period of violence between ethnic divisions once our troops leave.

Bank on it.

[Robin Hood]

6. CIvil war will happen anyway.

unless you appoint a dictatorial regime in the region. This was one of the reason why it was a bad idea to invade iraq. But we broke it and now we own the damn mess.

[Jacobin]

10. Precisely

sad but true.

We are fucked and the M.E. is more likely to erupt than before the invasion.

[tom_paine]

5. You think bugging them during the runup to the Iraq war

had anything to do with it?

And here the Busheviks were thinking that the rest of the world was as weak and spineless as the Democrats and journalists they've been bullying for YEARS.

I am torn, because while I still wish the world didn't hate us (and that we'd not given them SOOOOOOOO many good reasons to do so) I am always glad to see bullies get stood up to.

Now, if only the Democrats and journalists could do the same.

[Jacobin]

9. Ruh Roh

Does this mean the grateful Iraqi people may turn the puppet government out of power??

surely bad news for the neo-cons.

Let me guess. Smirky will now denounce the U.N. as 'irrelevant' and do what he damn well pleases anyway.

[Doctor_J]

12. Sounds like this won't work this time

The UN intends to support the citizens' desire for elections. If Rove tries to mess with that, we may face the wrath of the UN. Of course UK will still be on our side.

[AZCat]

11. Remember- Elections don't mean majority rules

Everybody seems to be worried that civil war will break out if elections are held. Even in the US we have disproportionate representation- because of the electoral college. It shouldn't be that difficult to set up an electoral system where the majority doesn't totally dominate. Make sure everybody gets to vote, that representatives (or whatever they decide to call them) cover all the necessary areas, and then at least people won't feel that the US put our own people into power.

[Mattforclark]

13. That is well and good, but

why do you think that Sistani & the Shi'a would go for such a system?

[waywest]

14. Call Scalia

We need a judgement...Quick!

[AZCat]

16. I think your right- they would resist anything...

The Shi'a have ~60% of the pop. of Iraq, right? (I don't remember)
This isn't that different from the fight over the US Constitution. The whole reason we have two congressional bodies is because the framers had to compromise between proportionality and regional representation. It seems to me that Sistani might be willing to go for some sort of split system that at least guarantees one body will have proportional representation- it probably looks better than a wholly-US created system.
But then again, I could be wrong. :shrug:

[Mattforclark]

17. Yes

I think 60% is right. Maybe Sistani would do something like that. Maybe he won't. Sistani is the singular most powerful person in the middle east right now... I've looked for psychological profiles and information about him, but I haven't found too much. I hope Bush pays more attention to whatever intel we have about Sistani than he did to intel about Saddam...

What will happen? Who knows.

[AZCat]

18. I worry that...

I worry that Bush/Bremer will try to force the Chalabi group into whatever power structure they create. I do not think they are well-regarded over there (partly because they are crooks and partly because they have been expatriots for so long) and I think this is a flashpoint for many Iraqis.

[Jacobin]

15. Big Kick

This is a big story and foretells the implosion of IraqNam come July.

Get your hard hats on