Iraqi Politics

[Michael]

Iraqi parliament adjournes without passing anything...

BAGHDAD — After weeks of late-night negotiations and under intense U.S. pressure, Iraqi lawmakers failed to pass a much-debated provincial elections law Wednesday before adjourning for the month.

The failure to pass the law, which would govern elections in provinces across the country, may push the elections into next year. If elections don't happen by the end of this year, it could be July before the balloting could be carried out, U.N. spokesman Said Arikat said.

Elections originally were scheduled for October of this year.

The latest move by parliament underscores the great divide between security and political progress in Iraq. While violence is at a record low, progress on the political front is lagging as sectarian blocs wrangle over each divisive issue to come before the parliament...

Source (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/46626.html)

It would appear to me, that with the complexity of Iraqi politics, an endless delay due to intercene squabbling in parliament is probably a sign of progress. At least they are talking and not shooting each other. That is progress!

Seriously, that really does look like political progress to me. The deadlock in the Iraqi parliament is a sign of a conflict of sectarian interests being addressed in a reasonably law-abiding and institutionally modern way. They are after all, arguing about setting up the laws here. Of course there is going to be some hard decisions there and that's going to take time to iron things out.

A hung parliament is probably one of the very first signs of actual democratic progress I've seen come from Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam some five years ago.

Unfortunately, this whole episode just underscores the increasing political importance (and high stakes) of these 'delayed' Iraqi provincial elctions, originally due in October 2008, then put off for November or December, now pushed off again.

Admittedly Kirkuk is a very thorny problem. But I respectfully submit that proper elections are the best way to address the problem with Kirkuk (and other issues). There can be no real political progress in Iraq until the next election and thus, it seems the Malaki government figures its best strategy to stay in power is to avoid any elections for as long as possible.

Can't say I blame him. It is my opinion that Malaki, his own Dawa party and his key SRI ally are quite unlikely to survive any open election in Iraq - be it a provincial or a federal one. There really is only one 'party' that is likely to increase its standings in either a provincial or federal election in Iraq right now and that would be the Sadrists. And that is perhaps why elections are not likely to happen any time soon.

[Michael]

BAGHDAD — Muqtada al Sadr, the Shiite Muslim cleric who made his reputation by opposing the American presence in Iraq, will disband the armed wing of his militia if a new Iraq-U.S. security agreement includes a date for an American withdrawal, a key Sadr aide said Friday.

Source (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/46946.html)

WOW! This is big news. Sadr is always full of suprises - seeming to take the initiative and re-defining the political landscape in Iraq as he goes. Very impressive politician he is. One could only hope Iraq develops a few more leaders of this calibre!

[Michael]

And a few other recovered replies to this thread...

I think it was you, actually, who first pointed out the power and potential of Sadr to me. Since then, I haven't really seen anything to make me think otherwise.

Being the pacifist type that I am I don't particularly like anybody who is in charge of a militia, but since there isn't really anybody pursuing pacifist means in Iraq and having success, the pragmatic part gets to take over. I like al Sadr because I think for peace and stability has to arrive at a country it has to be organic. Al Sadr strikes me as the type who is determined to shake off American influence, but not do it by overly embracing Iran either. Whether it is Iraqi nationalism, or just arrogance, I get the feeling that if he's running the show, he doesn't want to be a puppet of Uncle Sam or Khameini, which I think, in the end, is the best thing for Iraq.

Juan Cole is reporting information from Arab newspapers discussing a significant break between the ruling Shia alliance and the Kurds over the prospect of Iraq agreeing to purchase F-16 fighter aircraft from the USA.

Looks like the US Government has finally managed to piss off the one group in Iraq that has always been the strongest US ally.

Reports are that this break is a serious one. Malaki is darn near standing alone now.

On top of that, I've noticed a significant pattern of increasing attacks apparently targetting Malaki's government (his Security minister just narrowly escaped an assassination attempt).

Beginning to look like Malaki government is about as popular as the US occupation over there...

Juan Cole suggests that a new potential Shia-Sunni alliance against the Kurds could be rather ugly.

To me what's even more interesting is that a Shia-Sunni alliance would placate the Sauds and Iran, leaving the Kurds surrounded by Turkey, Iran and a Shia-Sunni Iraq. That's almost workable aside from the fact of Western interests possibly ending up with Kurd oil. Now that China's going to be a player in Iraq the oil is a whole new ballgame.

[Michael]

Looks like the issue of the US forces agreement is coming to a head in Iraq. The deadline is December 31st. That's when the present agreement expires. If no agreement is in place, on January 1st 2009, US forces in Iraq will be declared illegal by UN Law.

Obviously there is far more political pressure on the USA to agree to terms here than there is on Iraq. Iraq clearly wants the US out. By not signing, the Iraqis can force the US out even earlier than the US has already (allegedly) agreed to.

US negotiating goals in Iraq seem to make a mockery of US stated political goals in Iraq. US negotiating strategy seems to be predicated upon the US desire for a permanent US occupation of Iraq with no strings attached. The Iraqis seem to be holding to the negotiating goal of "get the fuck out".

Anyone think that the USA will get an agreement that meets their minimum requirements of unfettered activity in Iraq and total immunity from Iraqi law?

In other news, there is still no sign of the Iraqi Provincial elections...

[Americano]

From what I read, in spite of US Secretary of Defense Gates continually stating that the deal was “mostly done” there's zero progress:

"Senior Iraqi politicians have warned that a crucial deal between Baghdad and Washington governing the presence of American troops in the country is doomed to failure after eight months of talks.


“The Sofa [Status of Forces Agreement] is dead in the water,” said one Iraqi politician close to the talks.


An unofficial poll of MPs last week revealed that the deal would fall far short of gaining majority support in parliament.


“It is absolutely impossible under any circumstances that we will accept this booby-trapped agreement,” said Nasser al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the opposition group of Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shi’ite cleric.
“This is an agreement which takes Iraq out of direct occupation and puts it under colonialism with the help of the government of Iraq. It only serves the occupier,” said Rubaie, who is also an MP.



That view was echoed across the political spectrum. Politicians also pointed out that they saw no reason to sign such a contentious accord with the lame duck administration of President George W Bush."


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article5014584.ece


Provincial elections 'could be held early next year', but with no determination of the Kirkuk status issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/world/middleeast/25iraq.html?ref=middleeast




Looks to me like Iraq has said let's just wait until the Bush administration is history and see what the US has to offer with its rapidly declining economy.

[Michael]

Looks to me like Iraq has said let's just wait until the Bush administration is history and see what the US has to offer with its rapidly declining economy.
Yes, it does look this way. Probably not a bad strategy. The longer this goes on, the weaker (and more desperate) the US position will become.

[Michael]

U.S. threatens to halt services to Iraq without troop accord
By Roy Gutman and Leila Fadel | McClatchy Newspapers

BAGHDAD _ The U.S. military has warned Iraq that it will shut down military operations and other vital services throughout the country on Jan. 1 if the Iraqi government doesn't agree to a new agreement on the status of U.S. forces or a renewed United Nations mandate for the American mission in Iraq.

Many Iraqi politicians view the move as akin to political blackmail, a top Iraqi official told McClatchy Sunday.

Source (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/54795.html)

Well, this shows that the US negotiating position is indeed a dire one and that they are a long way from having an agreement. Normally this kind of public blackmail is only taken when one is negotiating from a position of strength. Bluffing is probably not a good strategy here, but then again, these are the same people who thought the Iraqis would throw flowers at the feet of US troops...

Lets hope that this is just some stupid ploy that the US is going to back down from. I don't see how it could play out any other way.

[Greendruid]

This should free up troops to deploy to Iran and/or Pakistan in the coming year. War is the key answer to economic problems in the entire history of the 20th century in the US.

[Americano]

Source (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/54795.html)

Well, this shows that the US negotiating position is indeed a dire one and that they are a long way from having an agreement. Normally this kind of public blackmail is only taken when one is negotiating from a position of strength. Bluffing is probably not a good strategy here, but then again, these are the same people who thought the Iraqis would throw flowers at the feet of US troops...

Lets hope that this is just some stupid ploy that the US is going to back down from. I don't see how it could play out any other way.

A very stupid bluff. As if Iraq and the rest of the world aren't acutely aware of the UN mandate termination date.

[Americano]

This should free up troops to deploy to Iran and/or Pakistan in the coming year. War is the key answer to economic problems in the entire history of the 20th century in the US.


We certainly have the debt and military spending to prove that.

[Michael]

Iraq Seeks More Talks on U.S. Forces Accord, May Wait for Obama

By Ken Fireman and Daniel Williams

Nov. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Iraqi leaders are divided over whether to settle with the Bush administration on how quickly U.S. troops will leave and how they will operate in the meantime, or bank on a better deal from incoming President Barack Obama.

Iraq wants more talks over a draft agreement authorizing U.S. operations, a spokesman for the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said. In remarks broadcast on state-run television yesterday, Ali Al-Dabbagh said the latest U.S. version of the agreement requires ``meetings with the American side to reach a bilateral understanding.''
Source (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ajgvmdOEFOAw&refer=home)

Interesting quandry. Seems like the present version of the 'accord' is still not likey to pass the Iraqi parliament. Juan Cole is reporting that the high clerics of Najaf are preaching against it.

As a sidenote, it is interesting to see that Iraqi is clearly trying to move in exactly the direction that Muqtada Sadr and Grand Ayatollah Sistini have been describing as 'most suitable' for Iraq and Islam - the idea that the Clerics ought not to have any formal political role, but they are to offer their criticism and/or advice and that ought to be taken in counsel for matters of the state. This is a relatively good model for addressing Islam and democracy for non-western states. As always, I support the separation of church and state and it is good to see that principle gaining some substantial support in the Islamic world. This is a highly 'progressive' sign.

[Michael]

Iraqi Provincial Elections have been officially scheduled for January 31st, 2009.

Apparently the SCII and Dawa are running under their own flags for this election rather than under the UIA banner as previous. UIA is the ruling party in the Federal Parliament.

[Americano]

Iraqi Provincial Elections have been officially scheduled for January 31st, 2009.

Apparently the SCII and Dawa are running under their own flags for this election rather than under the UIA banner as previous. UIA is the ruling party in the Federal Parliament.

What's this, the third 'official' scheduling?

This raises the question of whether or not Maliki can gather enough support to do a deal with Bush before 12/31/08 as I'd think he'll be toast after the provincial elections. The Sauds have to be breathing down current administration's neck to get it done.

[Michael]

What's this, the third 'official' scheduling?

This raises the question of whether or not Maliki can gather enough support to do a deal with Bush before 12/31/08 as I'd think he'll be toast after the provincial elections. The Sauds have to be breathing down current administration's neck to get it done.
Yes, the 3rd.

Here's another interesting development in Iraq...

Thursday, October 16th, 2008

How China is Beating the United States in the Global Oil Game

By Keith Fitz-Gerald
Investment Director
Money Morning/The Money Map Report

Iraq recently signed its first oil deal in 35 years with a foreign company.

And – quite surprisingly to many observers – the company wasn’t one of ours.

Not surprisingly, the U.S. news media barely acknowledged the deal – even though the agreement was major news throughout the rest of the world.

According to reports from Baghdad, the 22-year deal between the Iraqi government and the China National Petroleum Co. involves $55 billion, or 87% of Iraq’s current total revenue at a conservative long-term estimate of $100 a barrel.

Source (http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/10/16/iraq-oil-deal/)

And this just makes the one last remaining US 'reason' for invading Iraq evaporate. The US attempt to control Iraq's future oil has failed (along with every other US plan in Iraq).

[Michael]

Last I heard the Iraqi Provincial elections were scheduled for January 30 or 31st.

Anyone hearing anything on this topic lately? Seems oddly quiet.

[partofme]

Last I heard the Iraqi Provincial elections were scheduled for January 30 or 31st.

Anyone hearing anything on this topic lately? Seems oddly quiet.

I read something about it a while back. Apparently it's the first election in which the actual names of the candidates will be on the ballot instead of the party name.

[Americano]

Last I heard the Iraqi Provincial elections were scheduled for January 30 or 31st.

Anyone hearing anything on this topic lately? Seems oddly quiet.

Correct. For anyone interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_governorate_elections,_2008

[Michael]

Interesting... or should I say 'mysterious' news yesterday about Muqtada al-Sadr.

Apparently Muqtada al-Sadr has popped up for a visit to Turkey.

Very interesting to read about the various interpretations that is being put on this.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/05/20095115592374529.html

http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=16628

http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=16600

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090502/ap_on_re_mi_ea/eu_turkey_iraq

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/75141/-iraq-s-moqtada-al-sadr-visits-turkey.html

As always, Muqtada makes news no matter what he does. That's why I've always found this fellow interesting.

It is to be noted that five years ago when Muqtada publically insisted that the USA must withdraw from Iraq, the American government made Sadr into their Iraqi enemy number one. Both of the subsequent Iraqi puppet governments have also made Muqtada al-Sadr their number one enemy.

Well, the USA has signed agreements to leave on Iraq's terms and Muqtada al-Sadr is looking alive and well. Like I said, an interesting fellow.

[Americano]

Any idea of when his schooling (in Iran) is due to be completed and he becomes an ayatollah?

[Michael]

Any idea of when his schooling (in Iran) is due to be completed and he becomes an ayatollah?
As far as I know he's working on the level below Ayatollah right now and will probably achieve that within the next year or two. This is based on a well researched article I read on that topic about a year ago.

He's still a long way from Ayatollah rank - he's still comparatively young (well under 40). There is no such thing as Ayatollah's under 50 or 60 years old as far as I know.

One thing is for sure, if he does reach that Ayatollah rank, look out. He will quite simply "own" Iraq - this is because of his family patrimony as well as the fact that most Shia Ayatollahs are Iranian. An Iraqi born Ayatollah, especially with that kind of family-Ayatollah dynasty background, would be very influential in Iraq. I have a feeling we'll be hearing his name for quite a few decades to come.

[Americano]

As far as I know he's working on the level below Ayatollah right now and will probably achieve that within the next year or two. This is based on a well researched article I read on that topic about a year ago.

He's still a long way from Ayatollah rank - he's still comparatively young (well under 40). There is no such thing as Ayatollah's under 50 or 60 years old as far as I know.

One thing is for sure, if he does reach that Ayatollah rank, look out. He will quite simply "own" Iraq - this is because of his family patrimony as well as the fact that most Shia Ayatollahs are Iranian. An Iraqi born Ayatollah, especially with that kind of family-Ayatollah dynasty background, would be very influential in Iraq. I have a feeling we'll be hearing his name for quite a few decades to come.

He's certainly no fool. His advisers (I'd think primarily Iranian) have done an outstanding job in determining his timing on when to show strength and conciliation. It's no wonder the self-serving US and Maliki hate him.

[Michael]

Well, it does look like this is the beginning of the end of the US military occupation of Iraq.

Of all the things Bush did to screw up the world, the one (slightly) redeeming feature was his signing the SOFA with Iraq - the very agreement that is presently forcing US military units out of Iraqi cities and into the massive American permanent military bases in the countryside - at the behest of the Iraqi government.

As I stated back in 2003, it was 'goal#1' for the US military to establish large and well fortified bases inside Iraq and keep them there permanently. It will be interesting to see how things unfold in Iraq over the next 1-5 years - and if the US military EVER actually leaves.

Personally, I'm willing to bet that they will throw the fragile and disfunctional democratic system in Iraq out the window pretty quick (if it isn't gone already). In fact, I'll expect a Shi'ite version of Saddam's rule to come. And of course, the US goverment will support it.

The only real 'unknown' on the horizon that I don't think can be predicted or underestimated is Muqtada al-Sadr. Yesterday was his victory. When the US military was at the height of its victory, Sadr was the one who stood up and said, 'Yankee go home'. That was Sadr's message from day one and that goal is now one big step closer to reality. I don't believe any other major player in Iraq can claim the same kind of political success during this time period.

[Lily]

Well, it does look like this is the beginning of the end of the US military occupation of Iraq.

Of all the things Bush did to screw up the world, the one (slightly) redeeming feature was his signing the SOFA with Iraq - the very agreement that is presently forcing US military units out of Iraqi cities and into the massive American permanent military bases in the countryside - at the behest of the Iraqi government.

As I stated back in 2003, it was 'goal#1' for the US military to establish large and well fortified bases inside Iraq and keep them there permanently. It will be interesting to see how things unfold in Iraq over the next 1-5 years - and if the US military EVER actually leaves.

Personally, I'm willing to bet that they will throw the fragile and disfunctional democratic system in Iraq out the window pretty quick (if it isn't gone already). In fact, I'll expect a Shi'ite version of Saddam's rule to come. And of course, the US goverment will support it.

The only real 'unknown' on the horizon that I don't think can be predicted or underestimated is Muqtada al-Sadr. Yesterday was his victory. When the US military was at the height of its victory, Sadr was the one who stood up and said, 'Yankee go home'. That was Sadr's message from day one and that goal is now one big step closer to reality. I don't believe any other major player in Iraq can claim the same kind of political success during this time period.

Agreed. The objective of the neocons in and around the Bush administration was always to have a presence in Iraq, in perpetuity. I remember reading that strategy way back when on the website of Project for a New American Century. As early as 1998, members such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Donald Rumsfeld wrote of the need to "establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf..."

[Lily]

I'm reading on CNN that Pres. Ahmadinejad now "wants to engage President Obama in 'negotiations' before international media." This report is coming from Iranian news outlets.

This certainly puts Pres. Obama between a rock and a hard place. If there is one certain way to make Ahmadinejad's administration appear legitimate, this is the way. On the other hand, how can our president refuse to meet with the Iranian leader? I'm sure Pres. Ahmadinejad is very well aware of what's he's asking, although I'd bet a month's wages he wants legitimacy more than real talks. Somehow, I doubt that whatever "negotiations" may happen will happen in front of television cameras.

Another twist, here... with Sec'y of State Clinton sidelined, will Vice President Biden step into the role of negotiator in these matters? This will be interesting to watch unfold.

[Michael]

I'm reading on CNN that Pres. Ahmadinejad now "wants to engage President Obama in 'negotiations' before international media." This report is coming from Iranian news outlets.

This certainly puts Pres. Obama between a rock and a hard place. If there is one certain way to make Ahmadinejad's administration appear legitimate, this is the way. On the other hand, how can our president refuse to meet with the Iranian leader? I'm sure Pres. Ahmadinejad is very well aware of what's he's asking, although I'd bet a month's wages he wants legitimacy more than real talks. Somehow, I doubt that whatever "negotiations" may happen will happen in front of television cameras.

Another twist, here... with Sec'y of State Clinton sidelined, will Vice President Biden step into the role of negotiator in these matters? This will be interesting to watch unfold.
I don't see how Hillary is sidelined. That's just Ahmadinejad being an Iranian conservative, ignoring the woman and talking to the man behind her.

Indeed, I hope Obama sends Hillary to meet with Ahmandinejad, if any meeting is to take place! :D

I'm no fan of the bumbling Biden. He is busy 'concentrating' on the infrastructure stimulus stuff. That's good for him. Do not disturb.

[Americano]

I don't see how Hillary is sidelined. That's just Ahmadinejad being an Iranian conservative, ignoring the woman and talking to the man behind her.

Indeed, I hope Obama sends Hillary to meet with Ahmandinejad, if any meeting is to take place! :D

I'm no fan of the bumbling Biden. He is busy 'concentrating' on the infrastructure stimulus stuff. That's good for him. Do not disturb.

Western nations still refuse to admit our female leadership doesn't play well in male dominated countries such as most in the ME. Lots of polite smiles, appropriate reception, but poof as far as getting anything done.

[Lily]

I don't see how Hillary is sidelined. That's just Ahmadinejad being an Iranian conservative, ignoring the woman and talking to the man behind her.

Indeed, I hope Obama sends Hillary to meet with Ahmandinejad, if any meeting is to take place! :D

I'm no fan of the bumbling Biden. He is busy 'concentrating' on the infrastructure stimulus stuff. That's good for him. Do not disturb.

"Do not disturb." Hahahha! You crack me up, Michael. :lol:

I wasn't too clear. With Clinton's injured elbow and impending rehab, there was talk of her being sidelined for a while and being unable to travel. I could easily imagine Vice Pres. Biden running into the Oval Office saying, "Oh! Oh! Pick me! I'll do it!" ;)

In reality, Ahmadinejad wants to meet directly with Pres. Obama for the image it will send to the world. Who he will get is another story.

[Michael]

Western nations still refuse to admit our female leadership doesn't play well in male dominated countries such as most in the ME. Lots of polite smiles, appropriate reception, but poof as far as getting anything done.

In reality, Ahmadinejad wants to meet directly with Pres. Obama for the image it will send to the world. Who he will get is another story.

Precisely why I want it to be Hillary if/when any official meeting occurs between US and Iran. It is time for that 'glass ceiling' to be smashed. If it makes sexist Middle Eastern autocrats uncomfortable, all the better. :D

[Americano]

Precisely why I want it to be Hillary if/when any official meeting occurs between US and Iran. It is time for that 'glass ceiling' to be smashed. If it makes sexist Middle Eastern autocrats uncomfortable, all the better. :D

That's easy to say for a Canadian with plenty of oil, gas and electrical power. Your Southern neighbor who has burned through its resources by choosing metropolitan sprawl as a national policy doesn't have that level of energy independence.

[Thomas Paine]

Speaking of Iraqi politics does anyone know if there has been any progress with the Iraqi oil law lately? The last time I checked to see what was going on with it a few months ago there wasn't much being mentioned about it.

[Michael]

Speaking of Iraqi politics does anyone know if there has been any progress with the Iraqi oil law lately? The last time I checked to see what was going on with it a few months ago there wasn't much being mentioned about it.
No, I don't see any progress on the Iraqi oil law at all. I wouldn't expect any either.

That's because to make an agreement on this issue requires that the Kirkirk question be resolved, and that issue is probably the single most vexing sovereignty issue facing Iraq.

Iraq can't decide if it wants to be a 'strong' federal state (with power vested with the central government) or a 'weak' federal state (with most power divested to the provincial governments). And in Iraq, "power" means state oil revenues.

It is also important to note that Iraq's present political institutions are insufficiently established or influential to make either system work at all (without rampant corruption) and thus it comes down to 'who gets to control the patronage piggy trough' (provincial 'ethnic' kingpins or national bigshots).

As a general rule, the Shia majority favors a strong central government while the Kurdish and Sunni minorities prefer a weak central government with strong provinces - especially THEIR provinces.

So the long and the short of it is that no oil law has been negotiated. Indeed, that piece of legislation is probably a good 'proxie' for the whole concept of 'democracy' in the Iraqi government. Neither one is very evident or likely.

[Thomas Paine]

Thanks Michael.

When my sons were in Iraq I used to follow issues there quite close, but now that neither one of them are there I slacked of quite a bit. I thought then, as I feel now, that resolving the oil law was one of the most important issues facing Iraq, and one that had the potential to send the country into chaos if the oil-rich Kurds couldn't be convinced to go along with any agreement.

[Michael]

Thanks Michael.

When my sons were in Iraq I used to follow issues there quite close, but now that neither one of them are there I slacked of quite a bit. I thought then, as I feel now, that resolving the oil law was one of the most important issues facing Iraq, and one that had the potential to send the country into chaos if the oil-rich Kurds couldn't be convinced to go along with any agreement.

Yes an oil-revenue sharing agreement would go a long way to resolving many of Iraq's ethnic issues. Unfortunately, much of the fighting over there is all about attempts to force control of the state-oil revenues one way or another so expecting a peaceful agreement on the issue is like 'wishing for peace'.

And I wouldn't be so quick to support Kurdish claims to owning Kirkirk. That's a very recent initiative on their part. That region is traditionally Shia. Don't forget the involvement of the US-supported UN post-1991 period with the "do-not-fly zone" and US attempts to destablize Saddam's regime by covert support for Kurdish independence. The political strength of the Kurds comes from their traditional claim on US support as an anti-Saddam element. That's gone now and the Kurds are having a hard time living up to their no longer US-backed claims.

I see the Kurds as the powerkegs of Iraq, not the kingmakers. They've been political favored by the US, just like the Sunnis were politically favored by Saddam. The Shi'ites are the vast majority and they are the ones who rule now. The Kurds are weak without US support as the Sunnis are weak without Saddam or Saudi to support them.

[Michael]

National elections are due to be held in Iraq in March.

No one is sure if they will happen or not. :shrug:

Hard to find any substantial information on this. Typical fucking media has apparently moved on to other newer shiny baubles.

[Zarquon]

National elections are due to be held in Iraq in March.

No one is sure if they will happen or not. :shrug:

Hard to find any substantial information on this. Typical fucking media has apparently moved on to other newer shiny baubles.
Well, there is always wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_parliamentary_election,_2010); this bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_parliamentary_election,_2010#Opinion_Polls) being more pertinent.

[Michael]

Well, from what tiny sliver of information I've managed to piece together, it looks like the American dream result that has been predicted by most American commentators to take place is not happening. Allawi and his Iraqi National List is not sweeping the Shi'ite south as is necessary for him to win.

I always considered Allawi an unlikely winner since it would signal a strong pro-American, anti-Iran position that the US wants very badly to happen. I just don't see Iraq embracing US hegemony. :shrug:

Anyway, preliminary results from two provinces in the Shi'ite dominated south show Malaki leading.

On this slim basis, I can predict that Malaki is going to be PM, though we will need to see the actual results to determine what kind of coalition he's going to have. If indications hold up, Sadr is going to be the coalition kingmaker, given that he (unofficially) controls the 3rd largest block - and no one can ally with the Kurds. If that's the case, then we can expect Iraq to become more pro-Iranian and more anti-American than it presently is.

And what that means is that the US military will not be using Iraqi territory to be launching any attack on Iran any time soon. For a US attack on Iran to succeed, the US needs Allawi to win here.

[Americano]

Well, from what tiny sliver of information I've managed to piece together, it looks like the American dream result that has been predicted by most American commentators to take place is not happening. Allawi and his Iraqi National List is not sweeping the Shi'ite south as is necessary for him to win.

I always considered Allawi an unlikely winner since it would signal a strong pro-American, anti-Iran position that the US wants very badly to happen. I just don't see Iraq embracing US hegemony. :shrug:

Anyway, preliminary results from two provinces in the Shi'ite dominated south show Malaki leading.

On this slim basis, I can predict that Malaki is going to be PM, though we will need to see the actual results to determine what kind of coalition he's going to have. If indications hold up, Sadr is going to be the coalition kingmaker, given that he (unofficially) controls the 3rd largest block - and no one can ally with the Kurds. If that's the case, then we can expect Iraq to become more pro-Iranian and more anti-American than it presently is.

And what that means is that the US military will not be using Iraqi territory to be launching any attack on Iran any time soon. For a US attack on Iran to succeed, the US needs Allawi to win here.

Allawi is the western media darling.

[Michael]

Allawi is the western media darling.
He's ex-CIA, ex-Baathist, pro-Saudi, anti-Iran and a Sunni. Go figure.

That combo might be popular in Washington, but it isn't all that popular in Iraq. The pro-Iranian factions are more far more likely to win - especially when you add up the 'lists' rather than look at single party vote totals.

[Michael]

Preliminary projections by Juan Cole:

Rule of Law - Maliki - 90 to 95 Seats

National Movement - Allawi/Hashimi 80 Seats

Iraq National Alliance - Hakim/Sadr
75 to 80 seats

Kurdistan Alliance - Talabani/Barzani 40 seats

Small Parties - 75 Seats including 8 religious minority seats

http://www.juancole.com/

Nothing surprising here. Results seem to be exactly as expected. US media predictions of Allawi's stunning victory appear to be hot-air (or more likely, wishful thinking).

[Michael]

Here's a couple of 'wonky' articles for anyone here (besides myself) who is a hardcore Iraqi political watcher...

http://gulfanalysis.wordpress.com/2010/03/13/sadrist-performance-under-the-open-list-system/

http://gulfanalysis.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/baghdad-projections-based-on-a-60-percent-count/

This analysis shows that where the Iraqi National Alliance is concerned, the Sadrists are cleaning up at the expense of the ISCI/Badr set.

In other words, of any seats assigned to the "Iraqi National Alliance List", the vast majority, somewhere between half and three-quarters are being won by Sadrists.

It is to be noted that all three provinces under analysis here are majority Shi'ite provinces, but only one is known to be a Sadr stronghold. On this basis, it would appear that the Sadrists are rising as a political power at this time - quite unexpected by most observers.

Based on Juan Cole's projection from the post above, that means that Sadrists will have between 40 and 60 seats in the legislature - one of the largest single blocks in the legislature (which is dominated by coalition parties made up of many smaller parties).

This is going to surprise/disturb some American observers, whom as recently as last week were pouring cold water on the Sadrist claim that they would have a minimum of 30 seats after the election. By the look of these early results, the Sadrists are going to far surpass that target.

[Greendruid]

There's a joke in here somewhere about Sadro-Milikism - if only my art skills were up to the challenge! :D

[Michael]

There's a joke in here somewhere about Sadro-Milikism - if only my art skills were up to the challenge! :D
I suppose there is, but it eludes me as well. ;)

In the meanwhile, here is a good summary of the Iraqi vote results...

http://www.themajlis.org/projects/iraq-results

The vote counting isn't complete yet, and then they have a really complicated formula to deal with re-allocating votes from defeated lists as well as allocation for "affirmative action" since the Iraqi constitution calls for 25% of the legislature to be female. The number of winning female candidates is apparently rather small (a fraction of the 25% figure).

(btw, the only party to field a large number of credible female candidates was the Sadr list under the INA)

[dilettante]

Looks like Allawi's party edged its way into the lead after all, though just barely. Still, looks like its going to be a long process of deal-brokering before there's a majority coalition.

Allawi: 91 Seats

Maliki: 89 Seats

Iraq National Alliance: 70 seats

Kurds: 43 seats

Other - 54 Seats (if I did the math right)

Allawi Wins Most Seats in Iraqi Elections (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/world/middleeast/27iraq.html)

[Michael]

Looks like Allawi's party edged its way into the lead after all, though just barely. Still, looks like its going to be a long process of deal-brokering before there's a majority coalition.

Allawi: 91 Seats

Maliki: 89 Seats

Iraq National Alliance: 70 seats

Kurds: 43 seats

Other - 54 Seats (if I did the math right)

Allawi Wins Most Seats in Iraqi Elections (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/world/middleeast/27iraq.html)
Math doesn't add up. 325 total seats, with 91, 89, 70 and 43 accounted for, that leaves 32 seats for "other".

Btw, if the INA is up to 70 seats, that means the Sadrists (alone) are likely a larger block than the Kurds since the vast majority of INA seats are theirs.

Anyway, from what I'm reading, it still seems most likely to see a coalition with State of Law, INA and Kurds.

Both State of Law and/or National Movement must form an alliance with Sadr and the Kurds - or each other.

From my perspective, both Sadr and the Kurds have very bad relations with Allawi's Sunni block (Sadr because they are Saddam's Baathists and/or tainted by the Americans and Kurds because of Kirkuk). Sadr and the State of Law are the most compatible of all the coalitions (as long as Malaki is dumped).

The Talabani vs Hashemi rivalry for the Presidency also plays to the Kurd-Sadr-StateLaw grouping as well since Talabani is a Kurd and Hashemi is allied with Allawi.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how the coalition building plays out. Indications are that the preliminary agreement on the Presidency will show where things are going.

[Michael]

There's a joke in here somewhere about Sadro-Milikism - if only my art skills were up to the challenge! :D

Indeed, it looks like you will have lots of opportunity...

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/files/96712959.jpg

It was always unlikely that ‘Ayad ‘Allawi would be Iraq's next Prime Minister. This now has been definitively confirmed and, ironically, on a day when Iraq's government formation process became the world's longest exercise in political stalemate. With the announcement of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's selection as the post-electoral Shiite alliance's nominee to be Prime Minister, the action now will shift to divvying up posts in what almost certainly will be a broad-based national unity government. This in itself is no easy task, but at least this announcement gives the process clear direction and will provide a framework for the negotiations to come.

Despite his electoral slate's surprisingly strong showing in last March's parliamentary elections, ‘Allawi's immediate political future was inherently limited due to the sectarian dynamics that continue to shape political discourse in post-Saddam Hussein Iraqi politics. It is certainly true that the ‘Iraqiyya list garnered a respectable nationwide level of cross-sectarian support. However, the dominant political factions in today's Iraq represent points within a spectrum of Shiite Islamist consensus. Unsurprisingly, after years of disenfranchisement and repression, this segment of the political class is hugely defensive of its entitlement to rule the country. The political courtship of ‘Allawi by various figures from the Shiite establishment was more about negotiating leverage within the intra-Shiite contest for power than about real cross-sectarian outreach.
Source (http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/10/01/meet_the_new_boss_same_as_the_old_boss)

No real surprise here.

If anyone is hardcore interested, here's some other articles discussing the announcement.

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2010/10/the-long-road-to-iraqi-government-formation.html

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/greenwald/366801

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/01/nouri-almaliki-nominated-prime-minister

You'll have to search through all of them to find only a single meaningful mention of Sadr - but its an important one...

Al-Maliki arrived at this point due to the unlikely support of his most bitter political enemies from within the Shiite camp, the Sadrists.

As has been reported here repeatedly, Sadr is the real powerbroker or kingmaker in Iraq and has been since the American's took out Saddam. No surprises here.

Personally, I take great pleasure in seeing the ICRI in disarray, out-maneuvered and out-played by Sadr, left standing on the sidelines. ICRI is of course the official conduit for Iranian influence in Iraq. They were the biggest losers here. American political influence clearly isn't worth much either since the US government were the strongest backers of the Allawi-Sunni faction.

[Greendruid]

It's pretty hard to keep an old culture down. There is so much cultural depth and complexity to this place, why on earth would any outsider think they had a chance at understanding it sufficiently and then implementing their version of change is beyond me.

[Michael]

It's pretty hard to keep an old culture down. There is so much cultural depth and complexity to this place, why on earth would any outsider think they had a chance at understanding it sufficiently and then implementing their version of change is beyond me.

Hubris is a fairly common human failing.

I predicted back in 2002, that if the US takes out Saddam, there will be Sunni vs Shia conflict and ultimately, any honest democratic election will produce a Shi'ite theocratic state.

Indeed, that's the basis of my admiration for Sadr - he has a political viewpoint on Islam and democracy that I consider viable in Iraq - and will avoid the full theocracy of Iran. That's the best case scenario I think one can rationally hope for in Iraq. All indications are that Sadr is pushing precisely this line and is apparently succeeding.

For those who are curious, Sadr's official political view is that the Imans should NOT rule the country in any official way. He asserts that it is the proper role of Islamic clerics to advise a secular government, not rule it - this is categorially different than the Iranian policy where the Islamic clerics have official government authority to rule over the government.

[Americano]

Hubris is a fairly common human failing.

I predicted back in 2002, that if the US takes out Saddam, there will be Sunni vs Shia conflict and ultimately, any honest democratic election will produce a Shi'ite theocratic state.

Indeed, that's the basis of my admiration for Sadr - he has a political viewpoint on Islam and democracy that I consider viable in Iraq - and will avoid the full theocracy of Iran. That's the best case scenario I think one can rationally hope for in Iraq. All indications are that Sadr is pushing precisely this line and is apparently succeeding.

For those who are curious, Sadr's official political view is that the Imans should NOT rule the country in any official way. He asserts that it is the proper role of Islamic clerics to advise a secular government, not rule it - this is categorially different than the Iranian policy where the Islamic clerics have official government authority to rule over the government.

I still believe Sadr follows Sistani:

Long and for the issue of Iraq politics, politically interesting. (http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=21112)

[Americano]

It's pretty hard to keep an old culture down. There is so much cultural depth and complexity to this place, why on earth would any outsider think they had a chance at understanding it sufficiently and then implementing their version of change is beyond me.

Follow the money.

[Michael]

I still believe Sadr follows Sistani:

Long and for the issue of Iraq politics, politically interesting. (http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=21112)

As I've suggested previously, Sadr officially follows Sistiani because that's how the game of Islamic clerical ranking is played. That being said, I believe in reality, on issues of politics, it works the other way around. Sistiani appears to take his political cues from Sadr which makes it easy for Sadr to follow Sistiani.

As I mentioned previously, Sistiani originally supported the US occupation and asked Iraqis to go along with it. That was a huge political blunder from Sistiani and an order that was completely ignored by the Iraqi people. Indeed, I think that's the real reason that Sistiani has become so mute about Iraqi politics. Once burned, twice shy type of thing.

As for the policy of a non-jurist role for Islam in Iraq, I respectfully submit that Sadr was the first Islamic cleric of any standing in Iraq to publicly proclaim that policy. Prior to Sadr proclaiming that policy, it was assumed by all observers that Shia policy in Iraq was to emulate the Iranian state. Sistiani had no history of stating/favoring that policy until AFTER Sadr started pushing it. Now it is Sistiani's official position.

In this respect, the two most important clerics in Iraq (Sistiani due to rank, Sadr due to family bloodlines) are in political agreement that the Iranian model is not to be followed in Iraq. Both officially favor a secular (non-jurist) state.

[Michael]

I still believe Sadr follows Sistani:

Long and for the issue of Iraq politics, politically interesting. (http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=21112)

I'd also take that source with a BIG grain of salt. That's a high-ranking Saudi journalist on an official Saudi media site.

Saudi has the most intense level of media control probably on the planet. And Saudi is Sunni and hates Shia with a passion. The Saudis are the ones funding the Sunni insurgency in Iraq. As such, Sadr is their most hated enemy and they have a very strong vested interest in sowing discord in Iraq (and paying reverence to traditional forms of authority).

[Michael]

Looks like Mookie has officially returned to Iraq.

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2011/01/05/PH2011010503739.jpg

Cleric Moqtada al-Sadr returns to Iraq after self-imposed exile

By Saad Sarhan and Aaron C. Davis
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, January 6, 2011; 12:00 AM

NAJAF, IRAQ - Anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose militia contributed to the bloodiest days of the Iraq war, made a surprise return to Iraq on Wednesday, ending nearly four years of self-imposed exile in Iran and raising new questions about U.S. influence here.

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/05/AR2011010500724.html?sid=ST2011010503952)

Seriously, don't the US media get tired of using the same scripts over and over? It is amusing how EVERY single reference to Sadr in US media sources ALWAYS start off by labelling him the "Anti-American Shiite cleric".

Seriously, do they think that Sadr is the only one of those? Heck, I think one would be hard pressed to find a Shiite cleric that isn't anti-American, given the way elite American politicians routinely define Islam itself as a terrorist organization.

But anyways, the news is that Sadr is back in Iraq now and the Washington Post's hysterical reaction is indicative that Sadr is still anything but 'washed out' or 'yesterdays news'. As I've said all along, Sadr is one of the most important figures in Iraqi politics whether American elites approve of this or not. Typically hysterical coverage from the Washington Post confirms this (note that the story was written by Post staff writers in Washington).

[Zarquon]

Have you read about Turkey's maneuvering in Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/business/global/06lira.html?_r=1&ref=turkey&pagewanted=all)?

[Americano]

Have you read about Turkey's maneuvering in Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/business/global/06lira.html?_r=1&ref=turkey&pagewanted=all)?

The best move Turkey made was refusing US demands to stage US troops in Turkey for the destruction of Iraq. It gained enormous respect in the Muslim world.

I also like Turkey's refusal to follow US geopolitical demands of economic sanctions on Iran.

[Michael]

Have you read about Turkey's maneuvering in Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/business/global/06lira.html?_r=1&ref=turkey&pagewanted=all)?

I didn't see anything in that article about Iraq, other than reports of increasing exports to Iraq from Turkey. :shrug:

Good article about Turkey though.

[Michael]

I also like Turkey's refusal to follow US geopolitical demands of economic sanctions on Iran.

The punchline there is that Turkey trades more with Syria and Iran than Turkey trades with the USA.

That's quite significant.

[Americano]

al-Sadr leaves no doubt about his position on US occupation troops in Iraq.

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/08/AR2011010800759.html)

I'd think most Americans with a working brain cell feel the same way.

[Michael]

al-Sadr leaves no doubt about his position on US occupation troops in Iraq.

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/08/AR2011010800759.html)

I'd think most Americans with a working brain cell feel the same way.

Sadr is consistent. He's been forcefully pounding that theme since day one.

Btw, that's probably the reason the US media has branded him the "anti-American" cleric. Apparently, demanding an end to US military occupation of one's own country is held to be the definition of "anti-Americanism". And yes, the Washington media establishment is that shallow.

More than any other definition, Sadr and the Medhi Army's actions since 2003 do fit the model of "freedom fighter" which is what we call [irregular force] patriots that fight to defend the nation against a foreign invader - which is always a respectable enterprise.

Indeed, the irony of the US argument that anyone who opposes their military conquest of Iraq is a terrorist is utterly laughable (and a bad case of projection, given the avowed "terror" aspect of "shock and awe").

[Americano]

Sadr is consistent. He's been forcefully pounding that theme since day one.

Btw, that's probably the reason the US media has branded him the "anti-American" cleric. Apparently, demanding an end to US military occupation of one's own country is held to be the definition of "anti-Americanism". And yes, the Washington media establishment is that shallow.

More than any other definition, Sadr and the Medhi Army's actions since 2003 do fit the model of "freedom fighter" which is what we call [irregular force] patriots that fight to defend the nation against a foreign invader - which is always a respectable enterprise.

Indeed, the irony of the US argument that anyone who opposes their military conquest of Iraq is a terrorist is utterly laughable (and a bad case of projection, given the avowed "terror" aspect of "shock and awe").

Almost as funny as American Christian fundamentalists labeling Muslim resistance to US military occupation as 'religious fanatics'.

[Michael]

Almost as funny as American Christian fundamentalists labeling Muslim resistance to US military occupation as 'religious fanatics'.

Yes, there is a lot of that kind of "the pot calling the kettle black" in US politics. Really makes it hard to take these players seriously when they all seem to lack basic self-awareness and honesty and are continuously engaged in mendacity.

[Americano]

While the US media has continued ignoring it, Iraq will again be in the news as December 31, 2011 approaches. That's the date all US military forces are due to leave Iraq under SOFA, signed by former president George W Bush in November 2008. According to the text, the whole of the US military, plus their civilian personnel, must exit Iraq by December 31, 2011, at midnight. If Washington does not honor the agreement, the US will be technically at war with Iraq - as in US soldiers illegally deployed without the consent of the US Congress. .
From an Asia Times article (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD13Ak01.html): (lengthy as some posters dislike pop-up ads on Asia Times Website)


“Heeeeeee's back! Every time Iraqi nationalist Shi'ite cleric/politician Muqtada al-Sadr resurfaces with a bang, the United States establishment shakes like a willow tree, while US corporate media duly dusts off the usual "radical, anti-American, Iran-friendly firebrand cleric" rhetoric.

So this is what the Sadrists sent as a gift card to the "liberators"; you'd better leave our land by the end of 2011, for good, as agreed. Or else one of the Pentagon's ultimate nightmares will be back; a revived, revamped Mahdi Army unleashing guerrilla tactics.

Muqtada's gift card message - he continues to study theology in the Iranian holy city of Qom - was delivered via his spokesman Salah al-Obaidi and backed up by a million-man-march across Baghdad. The masses came from all over Iraq's south and from Diyala province to the east (the crowds were smaller because security closed off streets and bridges leading to the rally, near a US military base.)

The message came like clockwork, just one day after Pentagon head Robert Gates visited northern Iraq to convince the Nuri al-Maliki Government to, well, keep occupying the country to an indefinite future. By then, the US State Department had already announced it wanted to keep an army of mercenaries and what could amount to thousands of bureaucrats in the largest US Embassy in the world. The mercenaries allegedly will protect the bureaucrats. Talk about American exceptionalism.

According to Muqtada, "The first thing we will do is escalate the military existence activity and reactivate the Mahdi Army in a new statement which will be published later ... Second is to escalate the peaceful and public resistance through sit-ins." So if the US stays, Muqtada will turn Baghdad into a giant Tahrir Square - with the added bonus of commandos turning the Green Zone red and condemning contractors to road-kill status.


The great 2011 Arab revolt keeps reinventing itself in myriad ways."

[Michael]

Past history indicates that one ought to take Mookie at his word for he does not make idle threats.

[Tom Palven]

Past history indicates that one ought to take Mookie at his word for he does not make idle threats.

Gotta love Mookie! Remember when the powers that be in Iraq asked him to voluntarily come in for a nice little chat!:rofl:

[Donkey]

In the long run I think that Muqtada al Sadr will be the best thing that has happened to Iraq since King Faisal.

[Americano]

In the long run I think that Muqtada al Sadr will be the best thing that has happened to Iraq since King Faisal.

Unfortunately his following is predominately in the lower classes, those with nothing to lose. Hopefully, as US influence (and money) in Iraq fades, more of the middle class will be attracted to his nationalist philosophy and determination.

US State Department desired policy of retaining Baghdad's Green Zone as an embassy with enough mercenaries to protect several thousand bureaucrats used as bagmen is a prime example of US arrogant stupidity. China is pouring investment capital into Iraq oil infrastructure and with no political designs on Iraq will end up the economic victor in that race.

I think we all remember the Bush43 neocon supporters statement of 'don't worry about US war costs in Iraq, the oil will pay for it'. I find it ironic that we basically borrowed the money from China for that disaster and now China will reap the economic benefits while we still service that debt.

[Michael]

Unfortunately his following is predominately in the lower classes, those with nothing to lose. Hopefully, as US influence (and money) in Iraq fades, more of the middle class will be attracted to his nationalist philosophy and determination.

US State Department desired policy of retaining Baghdad's Green Zone as an embassy with enough mercenaries to protect several thousand bureaucrats used as bagmen is a prime example of US arrogant stupidity. China is pouring investment capital into Iraq oil infrastructure and with no political designs on Iraq will end up the economic victor in that race.

I think we all remember the Bush43 neocon supporters statement of 'don't worry about US war costs in Iraq, the oil will pay for it'. I find it ironic that we basically borrowed the money from China for that disaster and now China will reap the economic benefits while we still service that debt.

Agreed. Iraq shows the sterility of US foreign policy. US borrows the money from China, spends blood and treasure in Iraq, and China will reap the long term benefit - while the US accelerates a long term decline.

The stupidity of such policies, supported so vehemently by US elites, boggles my mind.

[Americano]

Agreed. Iraq shows the sterility of US foreign policy. US borrows the money from China, spends blood and treasure in Iraq, and China will reap the long term benefit - while the US accelerates a long term decline.

The stupidity of such policies, supported so vehemently by US elites, boggles my mind.

You might consider the fact that most elites heavily benefit from MIC investments (sometime take a look at which refineries produce gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel for the world's single largest oil byproducts consumer, the US military) and have levels of wealth dependent on expansion from natural resource futures. Aside from the usual half-crooked pooled futures investments a starting share in real oil futures is around $250k, by invitation.

Follow the money.