http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...l_nm/iraq_dc_13

How do we deal with a cleric we're not allowed to see and one that opposes all our ideas for wanting to turn over the control back to the Iraqi's? Is there a possibility he is wanting control himself? Is this cleric a hinderance to what we're trying to do in Iraq by being so obstanant, knowing that people listen to him?

Sistani is a Cleric that has been very irritating. It seems like every day or so, he finds something new to whine about. After the bombings in Baghdad and Karbala (the Shiite celebration thing), he blamed the US for not doing anything to insure security while during the celebration, he yelled for the US to stay away and respect the privacy that related to the event. Also, he has critisized the Iraqi constitution.

I think if we all just ignore Sistani and not give him an audience, he'll get the hint that we don't care what he thinks and he will just step back out of the way.


Definetly! He is one of many who have been grabbing for power since Saddam's regime collapsed. He's an Iranian born nutball who is being controlled by the Iranian Theocratic regime and is wanting power to make Iraq like Iran.

If the UN was smart, they would just ignore him and endorse the constitution

Unfortunately, there are a lot of Shiites who think he's the one who raises and lowers the sun. Dissing him isn't going to be useful. He'll rally his supporters to riot in the streets. Not the best way to keep security from getting out of control.

If this were the permanent Constitution, I would agree with Sistani. A Presidential position which has a cultural restriction on it is untenable. A three person Executive requiring unanimous decision is likewise unworkable.

On an interim basis, however, it seems the only viable way to include all groups in Iraq.

So, I also think we should ignore him.

It will irritate him to no end, of course, but what's the alternative?

We (or the UN in this case) cannot bow to every two bit wannabe radical leader. If the final version of the Iraqi Constitution is a good one, it should be endorsed. This one is interim (temporary by definition), and has different requirement for success.

Agreed.

How do you ignore the 900 pound gorilla?

He is the leader of the sect that is the majority in Iraq. There is no way under hell or heaven that he will allow the UN to ignore him. All it takes is ONE word from him to start demostrations and UN and US will have more civil disobedience on their hands than they can handle.

He has the potential to be as powerful as Ayatullah Khomeini was in Iran.

Handling Sistani is an all-important issue for the US influence over the future of Iraq.
He is a religious leader who will not deign to be a politician in our version of the word, so he can say yes or no from on high and dramatically influence politics in his country without actually participating in the system.

Without his tacit approval, it is unlikely Iraq will have a functioning democracy.
Giving him everything he wants will make him the most powerful force in the country. I don't see a long term democracy to be his first choice.

The interests of the Kurds and the Sunnis must be protected in this new country, and the interests of the neighboring countries are important to take into account as well. (Turkey, IRan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria.

His interests will influence the outcome. We need to use our leverage now to get the best possible constitution that protects secular and civil liberty interests while we hold the power. How, though, is the BIG question. And I don't have an answer.

To me it seems a lot like Poland after WWII. We lean toward different systems and we need to find a constitution to meet in the middle. The other side grabbed Poland, let's hope we fare better here.

His intended audience isn't really us, it's Iraqi Shi'ites. The various clerics were all jockeying for influence among the masses and Sistani is the current frontrunner. He's got rockstar popularity too, so there isn't much the US can do about him. We'll have to walk a fine line between accomodating him and not giving him everything he wants. Figuring out how to do that and where to compromise is a job for much smarter men than myself.