A brobdingnagian mess

UN official Ahmad Fawzi has been in Iraq for the past couple of weeks
trying to determine the viability of an Iraqi election. Apparently they
have decided that an open election (as opposed to the caucuses
recommended by the US) is not feasible by June 30:

A U.N. official said Friday elections could not be held in
Iraq before U.S.-led authorities hand power to an Iraqi government by
the end of June.
The United Nations is trying to mediate in a dispute between Iraq's
majority Shi'ites, who want elections before the transfer, and
Washington which says there is not enough time to organize them. "It's
not a question of delaying (the handover). It's finding a new
timetable," Ahmad Fawzi told BBC radio. "Elections will take place when
the country is ready and that will be after the handover of power."
Fawzi, a spokesman for U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, was speaking a day
after Brahimi held talks with top Iraqi Shi'ite cleric Ayatollah Ali
al-Sistani, who has spearheaded calls for elections before the June 30
handover. The Shi'ites, who were oppressed for years by ousted leader
Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, make up 60 percent of Iraq's population and
would likely dominate in an election. Brahimi, due in Kuwait Saturday,
said most Iraqis he met wanted early polls but that polls must be well
prepared. "I think we have agreed that the timing should not be a
prisoner to any deadlines," Brahimi told reporters after meeting Iraq's
U.S.-appointed Governing Council. "Elections should be held as early as
possible but not earlier than possible."

This is what Shi'ite leadership had to say in response:

Supporters of Iraq's top Shi'ite cleric Ayatollah Ali
al-Sistani said on Friday an assessment by U.N. officials that
elections are not possible before June 30 could stir revolt against
their U.S. occupiers.
In Sistani's home town of Najaf, his supporters threatened to rise up
if they did not get their way. "If the United Nations and Americans do
not fulfil the wish of our religious scholars then fatwas (religious
edicts) will follow," Sheikh Rida Hamdani, a Sistani follower, said.
"At first there will be demonstrations or civil disobedience and
finally armed struggle." "We are all behind Sistani, and Shi'ites all
have arms," Hussein Khalifa, a 43-year-old community elder, said. "The
ball is in the United Nation's court...if they do not achieve our goals
we will open a front against them. What is this talk that conditions
are not ready for elections?...Are the only conditions ready the ones
that allow Americans to move about and do what they want freely in
Iraq?" In practice, how Shi'ites react to the U.N. decision will be
dictated by the orders from their religious leadership. When Sistani, a
recluse who communicates through aides, made it known he was demanding
elections, tens of thousands of Shi'ites came on to the streets to
demonstrate peacefully.
"The Shi'ites represent the majority and they have a strong attachment
to their religious leaders, so any fatwa to fight America will be
followed by all Shi'ites," said Sheikh Ali Sweidi, a Sistani disciple.
"It will be a grave mistake for America and the United Nations to pit
themselves in a confrontation with Sayyid Sistani's followers. They
will lose greatly if they oppose the Shi'ite religious authorities."

On one hand you've got the Iraqi majority clamoring for free elections
while on the other hand there's the Bush Administration droning on
about "liberating the Iraqi people". If only it were that easy.
You'd think it'd be a no-brainer, but the reality is that Bush has the
blood of 530 Americans (and counting) on his hands, and has spent $200
billion (and counting) on the Iraqi invasion. If they were to open the
polls at the end of June, I don't think the "We Love America" party
would make a very good showing.
We've done an exceptional job of painting ourselves into a corner. If
we hold elections in June, the Shi'ites will vote us out. If we DON'T
hold elections in June, the Shi'ites will try to THROW us out.
It's a pickle, no doubt about it. And to make things even more
interesting, the American people are finally starting to think that Bush's war may not have been such a good idea after all:

Most Think Truth Was Stretched to Justify Iraq War

Q: All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the
benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth
fighting, or not?

Worth it: 48%
Not worth it: 50%

Compare to the Dec. 21 Post/ABC poll:

Worth it: 59%
Not worth it: 39%

So what we've got here is an Iraqi population that doesn't want us in
Iraq, an American population that's starting to think we never should
have gone there in the first place, and a President who bet the farm on
the war.
Like I said - a brobdingnagian mess.

Posted by flow Frazao on February 13, 2004 at 08:54 AM | Permalink