Please, Please, Can Someone Explain the Iraqi Election to Me?

[louis c]

Here's my Delmar.

I know that the Shiite religious parties, such as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, are the ruling influence in that country. There is no doubt that they have strong ties to our arch-enemy, Iran. I also know that they have won a near majority of the 275-seat Parliament, outright. The Sunni Arabs are running a strong but distant second. In this group is the anti-American firebrand al-Sadr. The Kurds (who want autonomy in the North) are about even with the Sunnis, but will place third. The parties of the pro-American, secular parties are garnering less than ten percent of the vote. The well financed political party of Iyad Alawi, is among the trounced group.

Now, the American military is trying to train and equip the Iraqi Army and police force. Those entities will be under the supervision of a government where 70% of the elected Representatives hate our F*cking guts. Even the trained troops don't outnumber the militias for the various groups, and are nowhere near as committed to their cause.

How the F*ck can the United States Government expect anything close to an ally out of this mess?

This in the neo-con model for the Middle-East? This is what we want to happen in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait?

Here's what I learned about politics and elections. First off, the most important thing to know about politics is how to count. An example: if you walk into a room with ten people, and you know that eight of them hate your guts, don't ask for a F*cking vote.

Now, if someone can just explain how this can benefit anyone in this country, even the neo-cons, the Republicans, the Democrats, the middle-class, the poor, or even the rich (when all is said and done) I'm all ears. This is the craziest adventure that any country has embarked on in history.

This whole war can only turn out one of three ways. Bad, Worse, and Catastrophic. Please convince me that I'm wrong.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Wish I could

[ThomWV]

2. I Would Challenge Everything You Think You Know

And I would do it just because what you have laid out is what I would have (only you did it better than I could have) but I think we may all be bamboozled on this.

Everything you said comes right out of the right-wing controlled media and its echoed by media on the left. I don't think we have a clue what is going on in that country. I don't think one reporter or dignitary or soldier on the ground in Iraq has a clue what is forming there politically. I do not trust one word I read about it and I do not trust one assumption I have about the damned place.

Here is all we really know about their election. We destroyed the country, we said we were going to build a democracy. A democracy needs two things, voters and a constitution. We made them write a constitution. Its crap and no one thinks it will survive but its written. Next they had to have an election. So they had an election. It was meaningless but it was held. Now, back to the mayhem sorting itself out with guns.

There will be one hell of a lot more shooting in that country before the first ballot is cast that actually means jack shit.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. put simply, perhaps too simply?

Until we flattened Falujah, and followed up with a few other towns, there was a segment of the population that was almost ready to give us a benefit of the doubt.
Since then, we have managed to piss off everyone, including our early supporters.
We replaced a secular strong man with

a group of shia powerful warlords who have most of the oil, on top of a distinctly irani religious belief, combined with a hatred of the US and Israel, cloned with patience and salted with some very savvy politically aware cats.

Kurds, who really, really, REALLY want their own country after waiting for a couple of hundred years, and who hate everyone north, east and south of them. They trust KGB about as much as we here at DU do, but for slightly different reasons. Then again, maybe for the same ones, come to think of it. They are working for their own nation building. They have enough gas and oil to be a player.
(we get a pissed off turkey, a pissed off EU and a pissed off - - the list grows long)

And, the sunni. Baathists, many of them, they were the cream before, and are now the shit. Bremer managed to screw the pooch so badly, so widespread and so deeply that I doubt that JC walking on water could help. They are hungry, angry and well armed. unfortunately, their ultra-religious guys are also growing in power.

nice, george.

But what of Chalabi and Allawi?
less than 7% of the vote - meaning the entire nation told Bush&Co, to go stuff it. Bad for his plans.

[SkiGuy]

4. Seems like you already understand, dude!

The shiite win is just adding to the mess that King George already made, and MADE IT FAR WORSE THAN IMAGINED.
So, neo morons, your plan didn't work. How are you going to get all this oil now that there was an Iran-friendly win? How are you going to get your bases built with pissed off Iranians fighting you every step of the way? You should have just given the oil to Iran ..before you sent 2000+ of our kids to their death.

[The Magistrate]

5. One Or Two Points, Sir

First, it is necessary to correct a mis=apprehension. Mr. Al'Sadr is not among the Sunni: he is a Shi'ite leader, a sort of "young Turk" rival of the prominent Ay. al'Sistani. The dividing line between these two is one of the major fauklt lines among the Shia as a political power. So far, each has served as a sort of check on the other: the prominence of Ay. al'Sistani constrains the numbers who will support Mr. al'Sadr; the fire-brand popularity of Mr. al'Sadr compells Ay. al'Sistani to make clear hos co-operation with the occupation to date is purely strategic, and will change when circu,stances are ripe.

Other than that, Sir, your perceptions are quite sound. There is no way in which the outcome of this election can be beneficial to any interest of the United States, at least has these have been defined in the region for the last several decades by a succession of regimes both Democratic and Republican. The aim of U.S. policy throughout this period have been to balance the popwer of Iraq and Iran to prevent either from becoming the predominant power in the Gulf region. A Shia dominated government in Iraq, particularly one in the hands of clerics, whether these rule openly or from the shadows, will be a certain ally if not an actual satillite of the clerical regime in Iran, and thus represents the triumph of the latter in the region, sealing its status as the dominant regional power. The next target of this regime will be enry into Saudi Arabia, using as a wesge the sizeable Shia minority there, who are subject to a good deal of routine mistreatment by the Wahhabi majority there.

[louis c]

6. You're correct about al-Sadr

I should have known better.

however, you get my point.

[Disturbed]

7. In the meantime the Americkan Neocon-Fascist Regime is..

proclaiming Iraq a success story. Will this "success" in Iraq be believed by the majority of Amerikans?

[The Magistrate]

10. No, Sir, It Will Not Be

The people wil be angered to discover the U.S. Army has established the Islamic Republic of Iraq, and it will not be possible to keep this from their notice any great length of time....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[al bupp]

8. I think it's as simple as this:

In order for the administration to legitimize the war they had to have an election. To satisfy this political need they were and are willing to to concede a lot on the margins. I think they were hoping that the various political players in Iraqi would somehow cancel each other out while economic conditions and insider deals established during the occupation created a de facto reality that even zealot clerics or secessionist Kurds would have a hard time undoing.

Clearly it's not working out this way. Unfortunately, I think it will have to become worse before anything reality-based out of Iraq shakes the admin from it ideologically-based perceptions. Read last months Harpers magazine for a good argument on way the best thing for Iraqi politics would be for the US to get out of the way of the civil war they must inevitably have.

[louis c]

11. I like your analysis

[Lost-in-FL]

9. Sorry, Iraqi Election class is right after Inteligunt Deesine 101

[Jeffersons Ghost]

12. The invasion/ occupation is already a success

It really doesn't matter if the election process fails... In fact, when politics break down in Iraq it gives the administration an excuse to stay longer. Once the price of gasoline hit a certain high-mark oil barons in King George's home state declared it a successful invasion. The longer we occupy Iraq, the happier defense contractors become, another dramatic success for the administration. The KJB philosophy: you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, so serve only a very few, ALL of the time and screw Amerika!