Full Version: Iraqi Election versus Iraqi Events
The bulk of the reporting on the election in Iraq by major media has been favorable because of the high participation of Sunni as well as other Iraqis. On the other hand, newspapers like the LA Times, alternative media, and some of foreign press have pointed out some disturbing consequences of the election.
The lead up to the election was marked by a major shift in the coalition's political strategy. Instead of lumping all resistors as terrorist, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad reached out to the indigenous insurgents in an attempt to isolate the foreign al Qaeda bombers and with the hope of boosting Sunni participation in the election. The election indicated the he was successful in getting heavy Sunni participation. (See Khalilzad negotiates with Insurgents). Other interpretations of the election are very skeptical about the impact of the election upon events in Iraq. See any of the following: LA Times Analysis of the Election, Jim Lobe Article on the Election, Juan Cole Analysis, USA Today Article, Guardian Article, , Iraqis Protest Election, or Chalibi's Miserable Vote Total.
Will the outcome of the election reduce or increase violence in Iraq?
Are the results of the election more favorable for US goals or for Iranian goals in Iraq?
Do you approve of Ambassador Kalilzad's attempt to negotiate with those who the President previously termed terrorists?
Should the US consider the high turnout a success and begin serious redeployment and withdrawal irrespective of unachieved policy goals?
P.S.
The last 4 posts from the previous topic pertain to this topic.
The lead up to the election was marked by a major shift in the coalition's political strategy. Instead of lumping all resistors as terrorist, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad reached out to the indigenous insurgents in an attempt to isolate the foreign al Qaeda bombers and with the hope of boosting Sunni participation in the election. The election indicated the he was successful in getting heavy Sunni participation. (See Khalilzad negotiates with Insurgents). Other interpretations of the election are very skeptical about the impact of the election upon events in Iraq. See any of the following: LA Times Analysis of the Election, Jim Lobe Article on the Election, Juan Cole Analysis, USA Today Article, Guardian Article, , Iraqis Protest Election, or Chalibi's Miserable Vote Total.
Will the outcome of the election reduce or increase violence in Iraq?
Are the results of the election more favorable for US goals or for Iranian goals in Iraq?
Do you approve of Ambassador Kalilzad's attempt to negotiate with those who the President previously termed terrorists?
Should the US consider the high turnout a success and begin serious redeployment and withdrawal irrespective of unachieved policy goals?
P.S.
The last 4 posts from the previous topic pertain to this topic.
QUOTE(TedN5 @ Dec 23 2005, 08:51 PM)
Will the outcome of the election reduce or increase violence in Iraq?
Are the results of the election more favorable for US goals or for Iranian goals in Iraq?
Should the US consider the high turnout a success and begin serious redeployment and withdrawal irrespective of unachieved policy goals?
Are the results of the election more favorable for US goals or for Iranian goals in Iraq?
Should the US consider the high turnout a success and begin serious redeployment and withdrawal irrespective of unachieved policy goals?
1.) A slight increase within the first months of transition of the new government and after the inital baby steps a new power must take, violence will begin to subside once more and stability will befall Iraq... you may define stability which way you will.
2.) I would say it is a slight tip towards America on the "benefical Iran v. America" scale.
3.) While considering a success I believe that the administration needs to keep current if not slightly-but-not-signficantly reduced troop levels in Iraq for the next few months.
This is how some of the leadership in Iran view the election outcome.
QUOTE
The editorial of Iran’s leading hard-line daily hailed the outcome of Iraq’s parliamentary elections as “the creation of the first Islamist state in the Arab world”, and warned against “American plots” to prevent the formation of the new Iraqi government by Iranian-backed Shiite groups.
................................................................................
.................................................................
Kayhan said the election outcome will “increase pressures, both inside and outside the U.S., on [President George W.] Bush to withdraw American troops from Iraq”. “Bush will have to give in and withdraw the bulk of his forces from Iraq in the next few months”, the daily, which reflects the views of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, wrote.
Iran Focus Article
................................................................................
.................................................................
Kayhan said the election outcome will “increase pressures, both inside and outside the U.S., on [President George W.] Bush to withdraw American troops from Iraq”. “Bush will have to give in and withdraw the bulk of his forces from Iraq in the next few months”, the daily, which reflects the views of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, wrote.
The evidence continues to mount that the December 15th elections in Iraq for a permanent government were a disaster for American policy goals. The Shiite religious paries won and the Iranian hardliners won. The Sunni, the secularists, and the US all lost. Murtha's redeployment suggestions may be too long of a time frame!
QUOTE
The more perceptive among U.S. intelligence officials and Iraq experts know how to read the situation, and they mostly believe it is hopeless. "I hate to say, 'Game over,'" says Wayne White, who led the State Department's intelligence effort on Iraq until last spring. "But we've lost it." There is no mechanism for the Sunnis now to restore a modicum of balance in Iraq, and the Shiite religious parties have no incentive to make significant concessions either to the Sunnis or to the resistance, White says.
Robert Dreyfuss Article
Will the outcome of the election reduce or increase violence in Iraq?
Clouding the election process are more than 1,000 complaints of irregularities, 20 of them considered serious enough to be deemed "red-card" violations. "The results won't be announced until those red complaints are resolved," said US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad.
Iraqi vote points to Islamist path
While both Sunnis and Shias have talked tough since the partial results came out, they have also been negotiating behind the scenes, and analysts say the main parties and coalitions are largely staking their claims for power rather than threatening to disrupt the process of forming a government.
Iraqi Shias willing to discuss coalition govt with Sunnis
I think this largely depends on how the results are received inside the country.
If the "red" violations referred to in both of these articles are taken by the Sunnis as evidence that they will never be treated fairly inside a Shia dominated Iraq, then things are likely to set back.
However the elections have been held and the tone seems to be one of cautios optimism. Let's hope that tone is right.
If the different groups inside the country are committed to a federal system at the end of this, then the United States can walk out of a stable nation and hope for a stable democracy. I don't see a friend of the US coming out of this.
Are the results of the election more favorable for US goals or for Iranian goals in Iraq?
I think a stable country lands in between. The fact that the clear winners were Islamist based seems to bode well for the possibility of at least a theocratic democracy, if not a one vote theocratic dictatorship.
Do you approve of Ambassador Kalilzad's attempt to negotiate with those who the President previously termed terrorists?
I think all key players need to commit to the process. The name terrorist is so easy to throw around. All those not connected to Zarqawi likely will be able to earn a seat at the key negotiating tables as long as they have the clout to be there.
Should the US consider the high turnout a success and begin serious redeployment and withdrawal irrespective of unachieved policy goals?
I think the policy goals should be modified downward significantly. Remaking the Middle East is overly ambitious. We owe Iraq a country that has a fair chance to stand on its feet when we leave. The high turnout, if it is legitimate, bodes well for an earlier than feared exit.
QUOTE
Clouding the election process are more than 1,000 complaints of irregularities, 20 of them considered serious enough to be deemed "red-card" violations. "The results won't be announced until those red complaints are resolved," said US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad.
Iraqi vote points to Islamist path
QUOTE
While both Sunnis and Shias have talked tough since the partial results came out, they have also been negotiating behind the scenes, and analysts say the main parties and coalitions are largely staking their claims for power rather than threatening to disrupt the process of forming a government.
Iraqi Shias willing to discuss coalition govt with Sunnis
I think this largely depends on how the results are received inside the country.
If the "red" violations referred to in both of these articles are taken by the Sunnis as evidence that they will never be treated fairly inside a Shia dominated Iraq, then things are likely to set back.
However the elections have been held and the tone seems to be one of cautios optimism. Let's hope that tone is right.
If the different groups inside the country are committed to a federal system at the end of this, then the United States can walk out of a stable nation and hope for a stable democracy. I don't see a friend of the US coming out of this.
Are the results of the election more favorable for US goals or for Iranian goals in Iraq?
I think a stable country lands in between. The fact that the clear winners were Islamist based seems to bode well for the possibility of at least a theocratic democracy, if not a one vote theocratic dictatorship.
Do you approve of Ambassador Kalilzad's attempt to negotiate with those who the President previously termed terrorists?
I think all key players need to commit to the process. The name terrorist is so easy to throw around. All those not connected to Zarqawi likely will be able to earn a seat at the key negotiating tables as long as they have the clout to be there.
Should the US consider the high turnout a success and begin serious redeployment and withdrawal irrespective of unachieved policy goals?
I think the policy goals should be modified downward significantly. Remaking the Middle East is overly ambitious. We owe Iraq a country that has a fair chance to stand on its feet when we leave. The high turnout, if it is legitimate, bodes well for an earlier than feared exit.
Eeyore, thanks for your participation in this topic. I would like to keep it active to discuss unfolding events in Iraq.
Even though you express a healthy skepticism, I think you are still being overly optimistic about the situation in Iraq.
None of the groups are really committed to a federal system. The Sunni are actively opposed because they won't control any of the oil. The Kurds really want independence or a loose confederation but are dependent on the Americans and can be maneuvered to support US political goals. The Shiite religious groups are the most committed to the current constitution so long as they dominate the defence and interior ministries. Here is a Gareth Porter article describing the limited leverage that the US still has, the Shiite resistance to American demands on control of the interior ministry, and the danger that the whole thing might spin out of control with the religious parties turning to Iran for support.
I hope your skeptical optimism is right and some stability and popular government results. From my perspective, however, the administration has screwed up too many times in Iraq and no good options are now left even with a skilled realist like Khalilzad in charge.
Even though you express a healthy skepticism, I think you are still being overly optimistic about the situation in Iraq.
QUOTE
(Eeyore)
If the different groups inside the country are committed to a federal system at the end of this, then the United States can walk out of a stable nation and hope for a stable democracy. I don't see a friend of the US coming out of this.
If the different groups inside the country are committed to a federal system at the end of this, then the United States can walk out of a stable nation and hope for a stable democracy. I don't see a friend of the US coming out of this.
None of the groups are really committed to a federal system. The Sunni are actively opposed because they won't control any of the oil. The Kurds really want independence or a loose confederation but are dependent on the Americans and can be maneuvered to support US political goals. The Shiite religious groups are the most committed to the current constitution so long as they dominate the defence and interior ministries. Here is a Gareth Porter article describing the limited leverage that the US still has, the Shiite resistance to American demands on control of the interior ministry, and the danger that the whole thing might spin out of control with the religious parties turning to Iran for support.
QUOTE
For Shi'ite party leaders, U.S. pressure to share state power with secular or Sunni representatives – especially on internal security – touches a raw nerve. They regard control over the organs of state repression as the key to maintaining a Shi'ite regime in power.
If Abdul Aziz al-Hakim and other SCIRI leaders feel they have to choose between relying on U.S. military protection and the security of their regime, they are likely to choose the latter. They could counter U.S. pressures by warning they will demand a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops if the United States continues to interfere in such politically sensitive matters.
That would not be an entirely idle threat. Last October, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani was reported by associates to be considering such a demand. The implication of calling for a relatively rapid U.S. withdrawal would be that the Shi'ite leaders would turn to Iran for overt financial and even military assistance, in line with their fundamental foreign policy orientation.
If Abdul Aziz al-Hakim and other SCIRI leaders feel they have to choose between relying on U.S. military protection and the security of their regime, they are likely to choose the latter. They could counter U.S. pressures by warning they will demand a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops if the United States continues to interfere in such politically sensitive matters.
That would not be an entirely idle threat. Last October, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani was reported by associates to be considering such a demand. The implication of calling for a relatively rapid U.S. withdrawal would be that the Shi'ite leaders would turn to Iran for overt financial and even military assistance, in line with their fundamental foreign policy orientation.
I hope your skeptical optimism is right and some stability and popular government results. From my perspective, however, the administration has screwed up too many times in Iraq and no good options are now left even with a skilled realist like Khalilzad in charge.
QUOTE(TedN5 @ Dec 27 2005, 11:44 AM)
None of the groups are really committed to a federal system. The Sunni are actively opposed because they won't control any of the oil. The Kurds really want independence or a loose confederation but are dependent on the Americans and can be maneuvered to support US political goals. The Shiite religious groups are the most committed to the current constitution so long as they dominate the defence and interior ministries.
I agree with this assessment, but I think the external pressures of the region and the realism about how the Sunni's would react to being locked out of any control of Iraqi oil hang over all groups in this situation.
The Shia want to control a whole country rather than risk being dominated anew by the Sunni after a civil war. The Sunni's are reluctant to face their new reality but will succumb if they gain certain concessions. The Kurds have relatively prospered in the last decade in autonomous Kurdistan and are likely relatively happy to do so. A Kurdish nation will spawn a greater Kurd nation movement. Both Turkey and Iran are likely to respond to that extremely aggressively.
Without external pressures I would think a civil war or a disintegration would be the result. With these pressures, they MAY not happen. But it is up to the Iraqis.
Do ADers now think the election has changed things in Iraq? Here is an Alexander Cockburn Article taking a NYT columnist to task for his wishy washy view of the election. He concludes with these remarks.
My own view is not quite as cynical as this, but I certainly think the public is being suckered again by the administration and most of the major media.
QUOTE
There's another way of putting this. The election was notice of Iraq's funeral, and the triumph of Shia-style Islam. An astute editorial writer could have asked, in conclusion, How long will it be before the US is pumping arms and other supplies into the Sunni resistance as a counter-weight to the Shia? But that, though germane, would be cynical, and editorialists despise cynicism because it goes piggyback upon reality, and hence is an unfit companion for their stately excursions.
My own view is not quite as cynical as this, but I certainly think the public is being suckered again by the administration and most of the major media.
I guess recent events make it clear that the Iraqi elections solved nothing. The attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra and the undirected retaliation by the Shiia have left Iraq reeling. (See NYT Article).
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.