Religious Leaders To Take Control Of Iraq?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Ah, the definition of democracy. Not hardly.

------------------------------------------------
By Robin Wright, Washington Post Staff Writer

Leaders of Iraq (news - web sites)'s religious parties have emerged as the country's most popular politicians and would win the largest share of votes if an election were held today, while the U.S.-backed government of interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is losing serious ground, according to a U.S.-financed poll by the International Republican Institute.

More than 45 percent of Iraqis also believe that their country is heading in the wrong direction, and 41 percent say it is moving in the right direction.

Within the Bush administration, a victory by Iraq's religious parties is viewed as the worst-case scenario. Washington has hoped that Allawi and the current team, which was selected by U.S. and U.N. envoys, would win or do well in Iraq's first democratic election, in January. U.S. officials believe a secular government led by moderates is critical, in part because the new government will oversee writing a new Iraqi constitution.

"The picture it paints is that, after all the blood and treasure we've spent and despite the [U.S.-led] occupation's democracy efforts, we're in a position now that the moderates would not win if an election were held today," said a U.S. official who requested anonymity because the poll has not been released.

U.S. officials acknowledge that the political honeymoon after the handover of political power on June 28 ended much earlier than anticipated. The new poll, based on 2,000 face-to-face interviews conducted among all ethnic and religious groups nationwide between Sept. 24 and Oct. 4, shows that Iraqi support for the government has plummeted to about 43 percent who believe it is effective, down from 62 percent in a late-summer poll.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._2004oct21&e=3

[Rohirrim]

Imagine blowing 1200 American lives and 200 billion dollars to install a new Ayatollah in the Middle East. Who woulda thunk it?

Like Bush said when asked about this a couple of days ago, "That's democracy."

[bendog]

She's a solid reporter. interesting piece.

But the end of the piece was interesting, imo, with BushII saying if they elect a bunch of guys who want Iranian style democracy, that's ok. IF BushII actually means that, he's just contradicted wofowitz ant von runsfeld. But it's interesting. What would be the effect in the arab/muslim world if a majority of shia clerics were in power, and told the US to 'go home,' and we went? What could they b**** about then?

[mosca]

while i am sure that our idea of an ideal iraqi government is not that of a theocracy, if the iraqis want it then let 'em have it. if the imams do in fact win then maybe, at the very least, it will shut up those who're claiming that we're occupiers only interested in installing a puppet government over there.

[bendog]

i agree, to an extent. the extent being Iran REALLY IS building a nuke

[mosca]

yes, very scary. i'd say that the chances are good that israel will take out iran's reactor. whoever's president if and when that goes down better have a plan for such a situation.

[bendog]

From what I've read, I don't think it's possible to take our Iran's reactor as it was Iraq's. One reason BushII wants the nookleer bunker buster bombs.

We should have forced the UN into an embargo of Iran a long time ago, but ....... we went unilateral and France is curiously hands offish about Iran. Despite what neocons want to believe, the snail eaters werent so ambivalent to Saddam and Iraq. But there's something culturaly between their view towards Iran. I'll poke around the internet next week maybe.

Time for HS football. Homecoming.

[mosca]

taking out iran's nuclear capability won't be a single strike mission as israel did in 1980 at osirak, but i'm sure they could pull off a multi-pronged attack if need be. they did buy 500 non-nuclear bunker busters from us...
i hope that diplomacy works with these people but i am skeptical as to how effective either economic sanctions or the idea of buying them off by giving them existing nuclear tech would be. anyone can see they are determined to get the bomb.

[TheDave]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Imagine blowing 1200 American lives and 200 billion dollars to install a new Ayatollah in the Middle East. Who woulda thunk it?

Like Bush said when asked about this a couple of days ago, "That's democracy."

Sad but true...

[Bronco_Beerslug]

By HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq - With three months left before a landmark election, a group of hard-line Sunni Muslim clerics may hold the key to Iraq (news - web sites)'s future.
The Association of Muslim Scholars, created only 18 months ago but now the most influential representative of Iraq's Sunni Arabs, is threatening to boycott the January balloting if U.S. and Iraqi troops storm the Sunni insurgent stronghold of Fallujah.

A large-scale boycott by the powerful Sunni Arabs — who make up 15 percent to 20 percent of Iraq's nearly 26 million people and are spearheading an increasingly vicious insurgency — would be disastrous for the vote's credibility and may push Iraq into even deeper disarray.
The association, which boasts an active membership of 3,000 clerics nationwide, has hardened its stance against the U.S. presence in Iraq recently as U.S. warplanes stage almost daily raids against suspected militant safehouses in Fallujah.

Sheik Abdul-Salam al-Kobeisi, a senior association official, said the group would call for a boycott if it determines the vote would prolong the American presence in the wartorn country.
"When we do, we will reject the elections, issue an edict declaring it illegitimate and not accept its results," he told The Associated Press. "We are capable of doing this, both in the so-called Sunni triangle and beyond."
The interim Iraqi government and its U.S. backers see the vote as a crucial step toward democratic rule in Iraq. It also is a major plank in Washington's exit strategy from Iraq, where it maintains about 140,000 troops.

In the election, which is supposed to be held by Jan. 31, Iraqis will select a 275-member assembly whose main task will be to draft a constitution. If adopted, it will be the foundation for a second election to be held by Dec. 15, 2005.
The Sunni association, which is suspected of maintaining links with some insurgent groups, has long been a staunch critic of the American presence in Iraq and of the U.S.-backed interim government of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.
It has, however, been careful not to publicly condone armed resistance against American or Iraqi forces. Although no boycott call has been issued, al-Kobeisi hinted Saturday that the decision to oppose the ballot has already been made.

"Certainly, we have washed our hands of this election," he told AP. "Frankly, the association believes the election is a ploy to allow the Americans to stay."
A boycott call by the clerics would have resonance among Iraq's Sunni Arabs, who are angry and frustrated over the loss of power they enjoyed under Saddam Hussein (news - web sites). Many Sunnis fear domination by the long-oppressed Shiite majority.
Some Iraqi experts question whether a Sunni boycott would be universal. Nazim al-Jassour, a political scientist from Baghdad University, noted that some Shiite-led political parties, like Allawi's Iraq National Accord, have many secular Sunni members.

Al-Jassour, however, said the association has both the means and the support to raise doubts about the credibility of the election.
As expected, Iraq's Shiites — about 60 percent of the population — are embracing the election, encouraged by their clerics who see the ballot as an opportunity for power. A senior aide to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani — Iraq's top Shiite cleric — told worshippers in Karbala on Friday that failure to vote would be "sinful."
An effective boycott also would deepen the Sunni-Shiite divide, fueling the insurgency and straining the country's fragile ethnic and racial fabric.
The boycott threat comes at a time when the association and Allawi's government are at odds over several issues, including detention of some of its members. The latest arrest occurred Friday, when American troops raided the Baghdad home of senior member Sheik Abdul-Sattar Abdul-Jabbar, taking him and two of his sons into custody.

Al-Kobeisi said 72 association officials are in U.S. or Iraqi government custody.
Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh, a Kurd, defended the arrests, telling reporters that those who incite violence "will be punished, whoever he might be."
The association also has opposed Allawi's threats to use force against Fallujah if community leaders do not hand over Jordanian-born terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and allow government troops to take control of the city.
The association and representatives from the city insist al-Zarqawi, who has carried out numerous car bombings and beheadings of foreign hostages, isn't in the city.
The association has been vehemently anti-American since it was organized shortly after Saddam's ouster last year. On occasion, it has displayed solidarity with Muqtada al-Sadr, a radical Shiite cleric whose supporters fought American forces in two revolts so far this year.
Diaa Rashwan, an Egyptian expert on militant Islamic groups, believes the association has an agenda similar to the national liberation movements of the 1950s and 1960s in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.
"Their only message seems to be the expulsion of foreign troops," he said from Cairo.
Some Iraqis, however, believe the association is functioning like the political wing of a guerrilla army.

[bendog]

Well, sanctions worked in Iraq and Libya ..... but it's prolly too late in Iran.

[Cito Pelon]

Originally Posted by mosca

taking out iran's nuclear capability won't be a single strike mission as israel did in 1980 at osirak, but i'm sure they could pull off a multi-pronged attack if need be. they did buy 500 non-nuclear bunker busters from us...
i hope that diplomacy works with these people but i am skeptical as to how effective either economic sanctions or the idea of buying them off by giving them existing nuclear tech would be. anyone can see they are determined to get the bomb.

The best option is cut them off from the outside world - embargo.

IMO, we should be using our Navy to shut down commerce to rogue nations, and work with the other stable democracies to shut down commerce by land.

This is the best option. It's gonna work best in the long run. Getting into land wars, nation-building, that drains the Treasury and gives other nations a chance to open other veins to bleed us, weaken us. We can't keep doing that.

[mosca]

Originally Posted by Cito Pelon

The best option is cut them off from the outside world - embargo.

we could always apply an embargo and/or sanctions and then set up an oil-for-food program through our trustworthy pal the UN!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Imagine blowing 1200 American lives and 200 billion dollars to install a new Ayatollah in the Middle East. Who woulda thunk it?

Like Bush said when asked about this a couple of days ago, "That's democracy."

When I saw the thread title, the Ayatollah was the first person I thought of also.

Way to go, Smirk.

Too bad bush's suicidal supporters haven't learned the lessons of history.