Surging Shiite Demands Put U.S. in a Bind

[cthrumatrix]

Surging Shiite Demands Put U.S. in a Bind
Sun Jan 18, 4:52 AM ET Add Top Stories - Los Angeles Times to My Yahoo!


By Alissa J. Rubin, Times Staff Writer

BAGHDAD — The Bush administration has been backed into a corner on its political plan for Iraq (news - web sites) by unexpectedly strident opposition from Shiite Muslim clerics, who played their trump card last week, calling on their followers to stage mass demonstrations.

In the next few days, the administration, along with the U.S.-backed Iraqi Governing Council, plans to craft a new plan for choosing a transitional government that is more satisfactory to all the sects and ethnic groups in the country, including the long-suppressed Shiite majority. But there is every indication that no matter what shape it takes, the proposal could be unacceptable to crucial political players.


"The administration is facing problems on all three fronts — with the Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds and the situation with the Shiites is looking more and more like a crisis," said Bathsheba Crocker, a fellow at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. "The picture could get a whole lot uglier."


The bind for the U.S. is that if it accedes to the Shiites' demand for direct elections — and thus more clout — it risks alienating Sunni Muslims and Kurds as well as secular Iraqis and women, who would probably have more representation under the current plan calling for caucuses and indirect elections. If the United States sticks to the proposal now on the table, it will face potentially destabilizing Shiite street protests

snip

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=2&u=/latimes_ts/20040118/ts_latimes/surgingshiitedemandsputusinabind

so much for democracy..one person..one vote

[progressivebydesign]

1. How can Bush have his 4th of July photo op of they keep interfering?

I'm saying this every chance I get. The July 1st target for handing over the keys to Iraq is for no othe reason than to afford Bush a photo op for OUR Independence Day. So he can be at some folksy little picnic in Texas or Iowa, and make the big announcement. No.. wait.. gotta think like Karl Rove. It has to be a picnic in a small military town that has seen many casualties.. (cynical, sad, but true). And Bush will be wrapped in a flag. Wearing on of his hideous plaid short sleeved shirt. He'll have a tear in his eye, as he pretends to hand over control of Iraq. Bush and Rove are probably so pissed that they aren't cooperating with his re-election schedule. How much will we be paying them to give up opposition to this?

Of course, the staged photo op be just as effective as the Mission Accomplished debacle to the majority of Americans. But we all know better. I hope we can all spoil it for Karl, if we keep talking about how manipulated this whole event has become.

[lovedems]

2. This is so interesting to me. While I know the future of their country

is the most important item on their agenda, I really think they know what they are doing by putting * in a bind. They are not ignorant and now his chances of re-selection are almost solely based on the progress, or lack thereof, in Iraq. Do you think I am being ridiculous or do you think there is a part of this plan that is meant to put the idiot in cheif between and rock and a hard place and thus make americans reconsider this administration and their policies?

[ScrewyRabbit]

3. They didn't intend to put Bush in a bind

It wasn't calculated to work out this way. The neo-cons genuinely believed there would be a peaceful transition and that we would now be garrisoning the country with 30,000 troops.

This, BTW, is all you need to conclude that the neo-cons are, in fact, insane.

[lovedems]

16. I disagree, I think they focused on pre-invasion plans and neglected

post war plans because if they would have taken a thoughtful look at the geopolitical landscape in Iraq, they should have easily forseen a power struggle between the different Muslim factions. Their lack of foresight has allowed the Iraqi's to take advantage of this vulnerability.

[ScrewyRabbit]

22. That's true

and they didn't make the post-war plans because they didn't think they would need any. Their ideology totally blinded them.

[Old and In the Way]

5. Who created Saddam? Who delivered WMD to Saddam?

Who betrayed Saddam and Iraq by signaling approval to invade Kuwait to stop the slant drilling, only to use this as the excuse to start DS1? Who encouraged the Kurd uprising...then allowed Husseein to brutally repress it. Who invaded Iraq based on lies of WMD to boost his economic/political interests at the expense of the Iraqi people?


Why would any Iraqi want to do anything that helps a Bush?

[lovedems]

15. Right, but would they thoughtfully do something to hurt him politically?

[markses]

6. Any cursory examination of colonialism

Will show you that the so-called "ignorant natives" almost always have a clearer grasp of the situation than their colonizers, are often more clever in cementing political coalitions and forcing the hand of the ruling class. The history of "Western dominance" is a history of the sword, to be sure, but it is little more than a catch-up game to the real revolutionary motor in its "inferior" provinces. iraq will be no different. We conquered Iraq by sheer military might, and have since been floundering in an environment in which our most brilliant and most asinine political minds all look like scared little children, and events have driven us this way and that, always pushed by the so-called conquered ones - all these damnable surprises that they afflict us with:

"A devil, a born devil
On whose nature nurture will never stick
On whom my pains - humanely taken - all
All lost, quite lost
And as with age his body uglier grows
So his mind cankers.
I will plague them all, even to roaring!"
- Prospero, "The Tempest"

Even to roaring, my friends....

[pinto]

7. Chalabi may be working for family/US interests, but on the whole

I think all parties are vying for their piece of whatever pie Iraq will represent in the coming years...and are serious. What will be the political representation for the Sunni minority? What are the possibilities of Shi'ite retribution actions for decades of Sunni/foreign rule? What will be the result of Kurdish demands for autonomy? How will the Turks respond? Who will run the oil companies? How will oil profits eventually be dispersed among the various competing interests, in state and out? What role will our system of democracy play in Iraq? What about EU interests lining up for some cash flow? Who,in short, will run the country?

I agree with the comment that the future will be "awkward" as the diplomats say...

[kysrsoze]

12. I think you have a really good point there

I'm sure they are concerned whether Bush et al will be in office from 2005 to 2008. There is a struggle for control going on there, and part of what determines how things go over time will be who is running OUR country in the near future.

Nice job of pointing that out.

[lovedems]

14. A thank you to all who replied to my question, whether you found it

silly or not. It shows a difference of opinion about what is going to happen "post war Iraq" (quotations used because I don't think we are post war) versus election 2004.

I think the Iraqi people and I dare say alot of troops, know that bu$h's decisions are based on the election rather then the best interest of the Iraqi people and the future of their country. I think some a playing politics to the dismay of this administration with quotes such as (and I paraphrase, not being able to remember the exact words) "I don't think bu$h nows much about elections based on the way he took office in 2000." I think the Iraqi's know what they are doing.

[54anickel]

23. I tend to agree with you. It's now a part of the plan, they are adapting

use the US elections to their advantage. I am sure they are up on the news here more than most Americans are. Perhaps they are seeing the "change of the guard" here as the break they need to make progress on their own agenda. Take advantage of the bit of confusion that can take place during the transitional period.

[mbperrin]

4. Damn! How can we run the elections if the majority keeps demanding

a vote!?

[Barrett808]

8. Analysis: Electing Chaos

Electing Chaos
By Jennifer Bremer
Sunday, January 18, 2004; Page B07

The Bush administration's timeline for political transition in Iraq, announced only in November, is already in deep trouble. Although the first of its five milestones -- a law defining how to choose constitutional convention delegates -- is still nearly two months away, even administration leaders are sounding doubtful. Will elections lead to a political outcome that is peaceful, democratic and stable, or is it possible the post-election period will find us facing chaos, even civil war?

There are two election scenarios that could lead to disastrous outcomes for the Iraqis and ourselves: (1) the Shiites win and (2) the Shiites lose.

The Shiites' winning seems the most likely outcome, since they account for about 60 percent of the population. But thanks to decades of oppression by Saddam Hussein, the Shiites have never had the chance to develop political skills in leadership and accommodation outside of the mosque.

..

If the Kurds can keep this unified front in place and capitalize on their greater political experience to get out their vote, emergence of the Kurdish bloc as the largest vote-getter becomes a real possibility.

And a Kurdish victory would lead straight to civil war. Neither of the other parties would accept a Kurdish-led government. A Kurdish victory would, therefore, increase the pressure on the Kurds to demand greater autonomy, bargaining for a larger share of the oil fields as well. These are outcomes that neither the Arabs nor neighboring Turkey could accept. Moreover, a Kurdish victory would create almost irresistible pressure within Turkey to send troops over the border, and maybe within Syria as well. The aftermath of a Kurdish victory could then slide into civil war, regional war or both.

(more)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23714-2004Jan16.html

[0007]

17. The civil war may have to wait!

[pinto]

9. (aside) odd headline phraseology, "surging Shiite demands", like no one

expected 60% of the population to have some expectations after decades of minority rule?

Sorry for the aside.
I know alliteration and action words give bounce to a headline, but, I have a pet peeve about headline writing and adjectives/adverbs.....
Shocking!

[fizzana]

10. Iraq will become the next Yugoslavia

The scenario is almost identical. In each case a strongman, for better or worse, was able to keep the lid on ethnic tensions that were far stronger than anyone realized.

A civil war in Iraq is looking more and more likely and if any of it spills over into neighbouring countries things will get very ugly very quickly.

[Jazzgirl]

21. Absolutely Fizzana.

And we started it all. I have always suspected there would be civil war in Iraq because * and co would cut and run as fast as possible before the elections. Don't think al-Sistani didn't purposely bide his time silently waiting for the right time to extend Shiite demands. Really smart move and one that puts * in the pisser. I don't see any way we're gettin' outta there in July.

Jazzgirl

[wabeewoman]

11. Riverbend has some interesting take on this

whole issue and what it means to Iraqi women.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
On Wednesday our darling Iraqi Puppet Council decided that secular Iraqi family law would no longer be secular- it is now going to be according to Islamic Shari'a. Shari'a is Islamic law, whether from the Quran or quotes of the Prophet or interpretations of modern Islamic law by clerics and people who have dedicated their lives to studying Islam.
snip
The news has barely been covered by Western or even Arab media and Iraqi media certainly aren't covering it. It is too much to ask of Al-Iraqiya to debate or cover a topic like this one- it would obviously conflict with the Egyptian soap operas and songs. This latest decision is going to be catastrophic for females- we're going backwards

[pinto]

13. thks for post and reminder of a great real world source from Iraq....n/t

[lagniappe]

18. History will repeat itself.

The Shiite majority will assert itself and try to form theocratic rule. The neocons will get nervous and install a Sunni dictator to counter the Shiite clerics. The Shiites will revolt, and the neocons will arm the Sunnis – perhaps with a few 'defensive' weapons. The Sunnis will put down the revolt, the neocons will be happy, and Donald Rumsfeld will personally congratulate the new Sunni dictator.

[daleo]

19. That was great

Using the picture at the end of your text was excellent. Says it all. As Jon Stewarts says, your moment of Zen.

[mike1963]

20. Heh, I guessed what that image would be before I looked.

:D