| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Iraqis Spit in America's Face |
| 2005-02-07 |
| U.S. 'in for a shock' In early election results, Shiite cleric's alliance trouncing Washington's favorite - Borzou Daragahi, Chronicle (San Francisco) Foreign Service Friday, February 4, 2005 Frankly, if I had my way, Mecca, Medina, Riyadh, Pashto-Garbagistan/Waziristan, Karbala, Najaf and Qom would have looked like the Moon, by about September 18, 2001. And US-UK flags would be flying over the entire Red Sea and Persian Gulf to Kirkuk oil-patches, as US taxpayers would have enjoyed huge budget surpluses, without having to worry about over 1500 holes in their family trees. Still the shiny-happy majority think that "freedom" is served by propping proto-Islamofascists in the Afghan and Iraq gutter entities. It might take a year, but you will be educated by the school-of-hard-knocks-to-fat-heads. Baghdad -- Partial results from Sunday's election suggest that U.S.-backed Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's coalition is being roundly defeated by a list with the backing of Iraq's senior Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al- Sistani, diminishing Allawi's chances of retaining his post in the next government. That is: the Iranian born cleric, Sistani. Sharif Ali bin Hussein, head of the Constitutional Monarchy Party, likened the vote outcome to a "Sistani tsunami" that would shake the nation. "Americans are in for a shock," he said, adding that one day they would realize, "We've got 150,000 troops here protecting a country that's extremely friendly to Iran, and training their troops." Golly! The partial totals so far show the Iraqi List headed by Allawi, a secular Shiite and onetime CIA protege, trailed far behind with only 18 percent of the votes, despite an aggressive television ad campaign waged with U.S. aid. A lopsided majority of votes, 72 percent, went to the United Iraqi Alliance list, topped by a Shiite cleric who lived in Iran for many years and whose Sciri party has close ties to Iran's clerical regime. More than a third of the alliance's vote came from Baghdad, the cosmopolitan capital where Allawi had been expected to fare well. Although the results are only from Baghdad and five southern provinces where the Shiite parties were expected to score strongly, and from only 10 percent of the country's 5,216 polling stations, the scale of the alliance's vote underscored the probability of a historic shift in the Shiites' favor from decades of Sunni minority rule in Iraq. Safwat Rashid, a member of Iraq's Independent Election Commission, and international election officials warned observers not to read too much into the early numbers, which did not include tallies in the country's Sunni or Kurdish provinces. Rashid said the Baghdad numbers came from "mixed" -- meaning Sunni and Shiite -- neighborhoods in the city where Allawi was expected to perform well. Hussein said Allawi had also performed poorly in Babil province, a relatively urbanized, mixed Shiite-Sunni area south of Baghdad. He said the vote total and the total turnout numbers wouldn't be known for another 10 days. Already, Western officials in Baghdad appeared to be downplaying worries about the possible victory by the alliance, topped by Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, a cleric who spent years exiled in Iran. The alliance "is a very diverse group of people, from Westernized independents to Sunni sheikhs to people who really believe in an Islamic state, " one Western diplomat speaking on condition of anonymity said of the alliance on Wednesday. "It will be hard to maintain unity." The election commission also released final vote tallies from overseas voters in eight countries, the United States, Britain, France, Iran, Syria, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Australia. The alliance won of 44 percent of the 170,000 votes cast in those countries, the Kurds 18 percent and Allawi's list 12 percent. In U.S. voting, Allawi garnered just 5 percent of the vote, less than the Communist Party total... So US Iraqis say Eff US. Ergo...? Anyone have a cure for Denial-Fever? |
| Posted by:IToldYouSo |
| #21 ZF does have good points, Jules. Allawi probably used up his political chips getting ass kicked when it needed kicking. After all, Iraq was in a collapse mode after Sammy was brought down. Allawi brought Iraq this far, and now others have to shoulder the load from here. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-02-07 5:14:42 PM |
| #20 If the statistical voting spread bears out, then it makes it all the more important that we keep building our relationship with the Kurds. I think Zhang Fei makes some good points in 17. |
| Posted by: Jules 187 2005-02-07 5:10:52 PM |
| #19 My 2c worth is people who think Iraq is on its way to an Iranian aligned theocracy are about as clueless as they come. The Iraqi shiias know that just across the border (in Iran) there are a couple of million Arab shiias and the Persians don't treat them very well. They will also be a source of conflict in the future. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-02-07 5:06:06 PM |
| #18 Of course we are concerned about the possible direction the new Iraqi government will turn out. We have 1400+ dead and a whole bunch of wounded that we have given to this fight. Sistani is a smart, slippery guy. But he will bargain. He does not have the power to blow away the opposition. He has to work with the Kurds, and to a lesser degree, the Sunnis. They will either horse trade, have a civil war, or partition. I will assume that Sistani understands this concept (unlike that moron Tater) and will work it out. It will be painful and there will be problems, serious problems, but the alternatives are worse. Everyone knows this except the Association of Stupid Sunni Clerics and they are shiite outa luck because they boycotted the show. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-02-07 5:04:50 PM |
| #17 DPA: I'm gonna try to be as kind as I can when I say you people freaking out about Sistani's party getting a lot of votes are both clueless about the Iraqi people and clueless about what it means for Sistani's chosen party to have the majority. I can't believe some of you are falling for this newest leftwing attack on our role in succesfully spreading democracy. I don't think democracy is the right form of government for everyone, but I do think that it is right for Iraq, because we smashed the previous government and need to replace it with something else. Having said that, let me reiterate that we may not get the people we want in power. Iraqis have been bombarded for decades with anti-American propaganda. Combine that with the slick Hollywood movies they watch that show highly-idealized portrayals of the typical American lifestyle, and you have Iraqis talking about how Americans are in a conspiracy to keep them down. It wouldn't surprise me if many Iraqis voted against Allawi. It wouldn't surprise me if many Iraqis are anti-American, but hide it in order to get reconstruction goodies from Uncle Sam. Only time will tell whether this is the beginning of a new friendship. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-02-07 4:50:08 PM |
| #16 I'm gonna try to be as kind as I can when I say you people freaking out about Sistani's party getting a lot of votes are both clueless about the Iraqi people and clueless about what it means for Sistani's chosen party to have the majority. I can't believe some of you are falling for this newest leftwing attack on our role in succesfully spreading democracy. 1) Democracy will being moderation in the population and the gov't. 2) Iraqis HATE Iran (not the people the Iranian gov't), especially with the Iranians funding terrorism in Iraq being so well known, and will not be "friendly" with Iran until it's theocracy is overthrown. 3) The fact that the shiites won is a good thing. The sunnis are the one's killing our troops... or have you all forgotten that because some leftwing windbag wrote a few words? Ugh, whatever. |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2005-02-07 3:51:22 PM |
| #15 yup, when clerics are openly part of the guvvimint, religion gets the blame for every lil ol thing. So keepen em seperate can actually be GOOD for religion. I do recall reading that somewhere before. Some Frog named Alexis something, I think ;) |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2005-02-07 2:02:17 PM |
| #14 To add to Matt's comments, Sistani is in a sweet position: he has most (if not all) of the power he needs, and relatively little responsibility. Unlike the mullahs next door, he doesn't get the blame when there are no jobs, no freedoms, and no prosperity. Let Allawi or the Kurd-du-jour take the rap for the economy, the continuing fight against terrorism, and the fact that cousin Mahmoud couldn't get a cushy gummint job. Sistani is a very smart man. Things are going his way. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2005-02-07 1:31:15 PM |
| #13 Amen Matt, we (the side of Democracy) are not allowed to win. Sistani is aware of the score and he knows that he cannot install a theocracy because they other factions would rise up against it. He also sees what is happening in Iran (notice he is now in Kuwait) and that theocracy is heading for a big fall in a very short time. He doesn't want to be "the next late Islamic leader." |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-02-07 12:37:15 PM |
| #12 Iraq the Model says this: Anyway, back to the main subject and the alleged statement; I chose to wait until the next news hour and of course until I chill out a little bit after the disturbing news and then I heard this update on the story "Haider Al-Khaffaf, a senior Sistani's aide says that no such statement was released". And going back to Friday's news, another senior aide of Sistani said from Kuwait that "the future constitution of the country is an issue that is left for the National Assembly to deal with". Belmont Club also has a post up on it, which in turn quotes Parapundit (negative) and an article in the Weekly Standard by Marc Gerecht (positive.) So color me shiny-happy. (Or is that a color?) And speaking of the spin aspect, if Allawi were ahead, the MSM take would be "US Puppet Leads Iraq Vote" with extensive commentary on how the whole thing was a sham. The far left just hasn't figured out how to cope with the election. |
| Posted by: Matt 2005-02-07 11:46:26 AM |
| #11 This is troubling, but then again, we did bring them democracy. It's their choice what they do with it - but I highly doubt that the first bunch of elected guys is going to ask us to leave. Hell, we allowed them to get into power in the first place, and they don't yet have the infrastructure to deal with the loonies by themselves. While I wouldn't want to ignore this if it's true, the cynic in me wonders whether this is the latest attempt to minimize all the good we did there, to put a nasty spin on a wonderful thing. |
| Posted by: The Doctor 2005-02-07 11:37:23 AM |
| #10 Who these guys elect is their business. Threaten us, and we'll make it OUR business. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-02-07 11:31:10 AM |
| #9 Democracy carries with it the right of the majority to screw up. (We elected Jimmuh not that long ago-- what were we thinking?) And screwups can have consequences. But I have to say that all those people streaming to the polls on January 30 didn't look to me to have a second Taleban in mind. |
| Posted by: Matt 2005-02-07 11:17:41 AM |
| #8 Another important aspect of this situation is that if the Shiites commit to theocracy, Uncle Sam can decide to partition Iraq. The Sunnis and the Kurds would certainly fight for their own states. All we have to do is arm them. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-02-07 10:50:39 AM |
| #7 The other thing notable about the invasion is that we have destroyed Iraq's military. The Sunnis and the Shiites are basically evenly-balanced. If this election installs a Shiite-priest dominated government that demands our departure, we will leave these guys to a civil war that will kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims on both sides. Each of the Arab regional powers (Sunnis) and the Iranians (Shiites) will get involved to ensure the other side doesn't win. Millions of Muslims could die. And it will happen without Uncle Sam having to deal with the political fallout from having dropped an A-bomb. Thus, even from a purely Machiavellian perspective, the Iraqi invasion does work. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-02-07 10:07:26 AM |
| #6 Sistani has written extensively on various subjects. Of those writings which we have obtained so far, he seems to be basically anti Iranian and pro secularist. Of course we don't have everything and many things were written under Saddam so who they may not represent what he thinks. |
| Posted by: mhw 2005-02-07 10:01:20 AM |
| #5 Article: Although the results are only from Baghdad and five southern provinces where the Shiite parties were expected to score strongly, and from only 10 percent of the country’s 5,216 polling stations This is a really huge "although". If I were to assess GWB's chances of winning the 2004 elections by looking at the New England area (20% of the population), I would have predicted a landslide for John Kerry. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-02-07 10:00:22 AM |
| #4 LH: Iraqis had no obligation to vote for Allawi, we came to give them freedom, NOT to put one man in charge. We did not go in to give them freedom - we went in to issue a warning to other Muslim regimes about covertly sponsoring terrorism and building WMD's. LH: Sistani doesnt want Iraq subordinated to Iran, and he and the parties alligned with him have been acting reasonably. They DONT want US troops to leave any time soon. Only Allah knows what Sistani thinks. But his administrative incompetence ensures that he will always need Uncle Sam around to protect him from Sadr - or any militarily-competent challenger. Unless he wants to become Sadr's puppet. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-02-07 9:55:11 AM |
| #3 Yawn. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-02-07 9:26:39 AM |
| #2 Iraqis had no obligation to vote for Allawi, we came to give them freedom, NOT to put one man in charge. Sistani doesnt want Iraq subordinated to Iran, and he and the parties alligned with him have been acting reasonably. They DONT want US troops to leave any time soon. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2005-02-07 9:18:47 AM |
| #1 Make a seat for them next to the French, but we'll finish the job we set out to do first. |
| Posted by: Thromoling Threaling9717 2005-02-07 9:09:59 AM |