History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
If early results hold, the United Iraqi Alliance, a party which has the blessing of Ayatollah Al Sistani will win an overwhelming majority in the Iraqi election. While I don't particularly like the simplistic catchword"Islamofascist," Sistani's views, as expressed on his own website, range from wacky to alarming.
How could the Americans not know?
Democracy always meant turning Iraq
over to the Shia.
Anyway, this is exactly what I expected
from the elections.
And I am happy. Sistani's list is likely
to insist on the Americans leaving soon, they
won't need American military help since they
have Iran right next door, Iraq will certainly
not be a base for attacking Iran and almost
certainly not a base for attacking Syria.
That will at least slightly reduce the chance
of such invasions.
Further, Iraq won't make peace with Israel and
will almost certainly support the Shia in
Lebanon. While that is bad in a global sense,
it has the advantage of making the U.S. invasion
look bad.
They had an election in Iraq and they still support
those anti-Israel terrorists.
The real downside is that the new Iraq might support
Arab Shia in the Persian Gulf kingdoms. While there
is nothing particularly bad about this in some kind
of global sense, the U.S. could easily get involved
in supporting the Sunni monarchies. One the bright
side, that will further discredit the invasion of
Iraq, the downside is that anti-war Americans will
have a tough time keeping the U.S. out of supressing
Shia insurgencies.
Oh yeah....the Shia don't want to allow Kurdish
autonomy, and the U.S. might support the Kurds
against the new Iraqi government. Big potential
problems there. I hope that in the short run,
the Shia will let the Kurds do their thing, but
they will not likely accept Kurdish autonomy in
principle.
To sum up, the election results are looking great in
the short run. Could be problems in the long run.
By the way, the first time the interim consitution
gets in the way of what the Shia want to do, they
will ignore it. They correctly believe it is
illegitimate.
The majority will choose the President, the Prime
minister and the Constitution. As long as their
choices can get through the process of the interim
constitution (2/3 vote for President and two vice
Presidents who appoint prime minister and then
any three provinces can veto the consitution by
2/3 vote,) they will avoid conflict with the
Americans. But they won't let it get in the way.
And that is one reason why they will get the
Americans out soon. The Americans might enforce
that constitution.
Hakiim has said that they will demand control
of the Army and are talking about a purge. I
think the sensible thing is to increase the size
of the Iraqi Army by a factor of 10 or so.
Basically, every unemployed Shia man should be
in the army. While the U.S. has this tradition
of small, well-armed and trained armies, it seems
to me, anyway, that the Iraqis have different
constraints. They need to replace the Americans
soon. They don't need a U.S. trained army that
at least some Americans had hoped would act like
the Turkish army and enforce secularism, and there
is always that old coup by which the Shah was
returned to power in Iran to remember.
I know I have a bad habit of predicting that
someone will do the sensible thing--an economists
vice, but I still think something like this will
happen.
And from the point of view of an American, anti-war
libertarian, it looks pretty good--we will be getting
out soon.
1. Correction: the battle of Karbala was in the late *seventh century.
2. Afghanistan: Karzai has been referred to as 'The Mayor of Kabul'. Reality & wishful thinking are two very different things.
1. How far does Karzai's writ run? There are plenty of warlords still around -- can history be cancelled by a mere war?
2. In Iraq: this is what there is. Iraq is part of the great swathe of Shias running from Iran to Lebanon, & including northeast Arabia - where all the oil is. The Wahabis in Saudi Arabia even refuse to give Shias there the status of Muslims. What has happened now is that, for the first time in something like a millennium, Shias are able to exercise real political power in the very area where the Shi'is were defeated in the late 8th century. -- American intervention was purely for its *domestic effect, on the electors *back home. In Iraq, it helped to open the way to Shi'i power. More fool the Americans, for not knowing what they were doing.
Yes, but despite that it might be even more alarming, because this is certainly a problem for the US Administration and the military in Iraq.
They'd like to see an pro-western government alike that in Afghanistan and Sistani certainly isn't that kind of person. (We can see this in the failure of Mr. Bremer to have Sistani vouch for the invaders or to get a private meeting with Sistani, early after the "war" ended.)
Jason:
Delighted to see you coming to your senses. :-)
Mark
These are *not his own personal views. They are parallel to those of an orthodox rabbi, giving rulings on matters of orthodox praxis; or, for that matter, a Hindu divine answering questions on orthodox Hindu praxis. Just so, Ayatullah Sistani provides authoritative answers on questions of proper Shi'i practice. Notice the contd hostility (for example)to the Prophet's wife Aisha, because of her opposition to the Imam Husain, all those centuries ago.-- Ayatullah Sistani has been very wary of putting up his own *political views on his website.
Oh well. Feeling good about Iraq was nice for a change, but this totally dashes my hopes. I have to say I deserved it.
Can't say I didn't see it coming though:
http://www.positiveliberty.com/2004/12/iraq-iran-pakistan-and-our-real.html