Results early returns / speculation here. If these results hold: -- The "Sunnis voting for Allawi" angle was way overreported. Allawi will not be PM. -- Chalabi is politically dead (yay). -- Shi'ites overwhelmingly supported Sistani and his minions. Might even get to 51%. -- Kurds held on to their 20% share, 2nd largest, with a heavy emphasis on autonomy. So what we'd end up with is either a Sistani-led Islamic ally of Iran who has majority rule, or a Sistani-led Islamic ally of Iran with a coalition partner whose primary focus is to to no longer be part of Iraq. Given that Saddam wasn't involved with 9/11 and Iraq had no WMDs, why'd we get into this war again? Oh yeah, to bring democracy and freedom to the Middle East and create a US ally in the region. Way to go there.
It's a little too early to call this one. 'Sistani and his minions' formed a coalition for the elections, but they're not one, big, happy, homogeneous block. The are divided into 3 main groups: the Dawa party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and the Office of the Martyr Sadr. Sadr's people are anti-federalism and don't like all the Iranian influence.
A leading Sunni Arab politician in Iraq has said his party will be open to an alliance with secular Shia and Kurds to form a coalition government to run the country once the results are in from parliamentary elections. Adnan al-Dulaimi, the head of a Sunni Arab bloc, said on Friday: "We will not accept the exclusion of any segment of the Iraqi people unless they themselves don't want to participate." http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/66B8C329-93A8-47EF-A14E-140C59B74D69.htm -- A prominent Sunni religious leader in Anbar province, Sheik Abed al-Latif Hemaiym, told The Times in an interview in Amman that Sunnis were prepared to work with the Americans. "We now believe we must get on good terms with the Americans," Sheik Hemaiym said. "As Arab Sunnis, we believe that within this hot area of Iraq, facing challenges from neighboring nations who want to swallow us, especially the Iranians, we feel we have no alternative." The willingness of U.S. officials to talk directly with many, if not most, insurgents marked a huge change from American thinking at the onset of the war. http://www.washtimes.com/world/20051218-013825-8851r.htm
In Iraq's largest electoral district, Baghdad province, the UIA have won 58% of the votes. That province is noteworthy for having a mix of shia and sunnis, making the shia victory all the more impressive. Overall, turnout in the south has been good and the UIA is expected to capture perhaps 90% of the votes in that region. Early indications are that the UIA will be able to capture a majority of the seats in the Iraqi parliament. While UIA is not a homogeneous group, all the candidates endorced by that party have reasonably good relations with Iran. Indeed, their list is known as the "Iranian list". Just as with the prior elections in Iraq, by contrast the "American list" (Alawi and his stooges) did poorly. I should also note that the most influential, and the strongest, faction among the shia in Iraq is SCIRI -- which is the most pro-Iranian group in Iraq. SCIRI previously swept Iraq's municipal elections and if not for heavy American pressure, they would hold many more portfolios in Iraq than they do now. Dawa has good relations with Iran as well, while Sadr's group (while not entirely pro-Iranian) ultimately need the goodwill of Iran to have room to maneuver in Iraq. Besides the shia groups, Iran has excellent relations with Jalal Talebani (Iraq's interim president and head of one of the two major Kurdish factions). Talebani only a couple days ago hailed Iran's positive and important role in Iraq's elections. Coupled with the results in Palestinian elections last week which gave Hamas a resounding victory, and taking place coincidentally at the same time Hamas' leader was in Tehran saying that "Iran is pride of the people of the region", Iran cannot be unhappy with the results from the democratic elections that have taken place in the region. At the moment, whether in Lebanon, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Palestine, Iran's position has considerably strengthened.
Man, the Ukranians wasted no time in getting out of Iraq post-election: http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=15261
I thought it was already considered a raging success... Given what we've heard about the results, this is like saying the Monster Raving Loony Party in Great Britain would be happy to join Blair's ruling coalition.
I agree sort of. I think this election shows that the Sunni's were willing to entertain the idea that voting is a valid port of the negociating proces. We'll have to see if they think killing and supporting terrorists should not be a part of the negociating process.
Jay Leno via the New York Times : "In a speech, President Bush said, 'As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq.' Yeah, well, I don't think he has to worry about other people trying to take credit for that one. That's like the captain of the Titanic saying 'hitting the iceberg, that was my idea.' "
The problem with some of these Bush supporters is that they fall for their own propaganda. It seems to me they really think that a politician tagged as being "pro-American" has a chance to win much of any votes in Iraq.
http://today.reuters.com/News/newsA...C_0_US-IRAQ-ELECTION.xml&pageNumber=0&summit= Iraq's Shi'ites eye new majority as results come in
Some election results are in, and it looks like the Religious fanatics are leading the way: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121900341.html
Although I had no doubt that Iranian supported shia groups in Iraq would do well in the Iraqi elections, I must say that the scale of their apparent victory has even surprised me. In some shia provinces, they have trounced opposing parties by 20-1 margins! In mixed shia/sunni Baghdad, they have carried 59% of the vote. These results should put an end to any pretense that Alawi represents anyone but the US in Iraq. The political group that has had the best showing in Iraq is SCIRI. SCIRI has excellent relations with Iran and if that faction is allowed to have an influence in Iraqi politics commensurate with its support among the Iraqi electorate, Iran and Iraq can forge an exceptionally close relationship. The results of the election will further solidify Iran's relations with the main Kurdish groups in Iraq as well. Already enjoying good relations, the Iraqi Kurds will seek to build up their influence by lobbying Iran. In this mix, while the biggest loser was Alawi, the sunni parties are also getting a good sense of the limitations in their own popularity as well. While sunni turnout was very high, the tally from Baghdad and even 3 out of the 4 sunni provinces has not shown the sunni parties able to keep a majority of even sunni voters on their side. In 3 out of 4 predominately sunni provinces, the sunni parties gained less than 50% of the vote. Indeed, on average around 35%. While the highest percentage in the sunni provinces, the fact that many sunnis have voted for the Iranian endorced, shia UIA, list is rather remarkable. The Baathists, the Saudis, the Jordanians and the other Arab states, as well as the Americans, all notwithstanding, the people of Iraq have spoken. And like in their other elections, they have said they trust Iran (and no other country, Arab or otherwise) to help them chart their future.
Why couldn't the Sunnis muster higher margins in the areas where they are most populous? I thought there were only two Sunni Parties. And why would the Shia parties be so handsomely rewarded given how poorly they've governed so far. The results seem pretty strange. Oh well, I look forward to Dubya shaking hands with Sadr on the White House Lawn.
We managed to replace a two-bit non-religious dictator with a democratically elected religious oligarchy! Slam dunk! Taking a page out of the new American voting tradition, the losers challenge the results. I demand a recount! I want to count all the inked fingers and the ballots, and make sure they correspond! Has anyone stacked the Iraqi Supreme Court yet? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq Well, at least everyone isn't used to war, pissed off and carrying an Kalishnikov. What?
Except for the 10% or so of the population. The secular, educated, middle to upper class, living in Baghdad. Allawis doesn't appear to have done particularly well. 20 or so seats. Chalabi doesn't appear to have picked up any. Nope. Sadr and his people are arguably the most popular. SCIRI are (rightly) seen as Iranian stooges. Dawa is blamed for Jaffri's failures over the last year. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the 'big three' Shitte groups ran on separate tickets. Maybe. Talibani gets along well with Iran. Barzani does not. Futhermore, the Kurds are going to push for federalism and as much autonomy as they can get. That idea is not real popular with Sadr or Sistani. Looks like they'll get about 50 seasts. That's about as well as the Kurds, and as good as they could expect. Put down the crack pipe. At least until we see what this new government actually looks like.
Such nonsense. SCIRI already swept earlier municipal elections in Iraq, doing much better than the other Iraqi shia parties. Unlike SCIRI, which is well organized and quite popular, Sadr's group has far more limited popularity concentrated in certain areas of Baghdad. Talebani has excellent relations with Iran. Bremmer used to call him "Iran's lobbyist". I am not current on Iran's relations with Barzani at the moment, but in the past Iran has supported him as well. Regardless, whoever Iran supports among the Kurds is the one that will represent Kurdish interests. Otherwise, without Iranian support, the Kurds will become isolated and would not be able to deal with the main shia groups either. As for pushing for federalism, it all depends on what that would entail? There is a formula that not only would be acceptable to Iran, but is one that Iran prefers since it has ramifications for the shia regions in the south as well. That formula is one that SCIRI endorces and is one that Sistani will agree to as well. Sadrist might not be happy about it, but they don't have enough independent clout and will not be able to follow a course that Iran actively opposes. Ultimately, it all will come back to what Iran can accept and what Iran would favor, since Iran is the linchpin that holds these groups together. Let me put it this way. If Chalabi's fortunes had enjoyed a temporary rise in Iraq, it was mostly because the US had accused him of being an "Iranian spy", pushing him closer to pro-Iranian groups. The minute Chalabi was received by Bush administration officials in Washington, notwithstanding that he had made an earlier trip to Tehran, and when he began talking in terms that weren't really consistent with Iran's vision for Iraq, these elections became a vehicle to give him a needed reminder of his true position and popularity in Iraq.
Then why did they beg Sadr to join their ticket? SCIRI/Dawa did will at the elections before because: 1)Sistani endorsed them; and 2) this is the first set of elections Sadr's organization participated in as an organized group. And I really shouldn't have to tell you that his popular base is not Baghdad, despite 2 million destitute loyalists in 'Sadr City', but holy al Najaf. Don't you remember the summer of 2004?
....the clear winners were Shiite and Sunni religious parties not the least bit interested in Western-style democracy or individual freedom -- including such extremists as Muqtada al-Sadr, whose fanatical followers have fought pitched battles with U.S. troops Dang. So where we go to get a refund for the cost of the war
Too bad. We are stuck with the bill. The original thinking (I guess that Congress knows about it)--is to pumping up Iraq oil production from 1M barrel per day to 3M barrel per day. US/UK probably took 1/3 of the profit to refund the war (of course, oil companies have their slice of it), and from Iraq's 2/3 of profit, they will pay for reconstruction (money goes to Chenny's friends, etc.). So when we borrowed the money from Japanese and Chinese for this purpose, we need Iraqi pay back those money plus interests. As it is stand now, due to loss of power position US has before, Iraqi may not give in the US pressure and made concession on the oil. They can just simply ask us to leave and ask everyone else--Russia, France, Germany, China, or India for the oil contracts, so they probably get a better deal out of it then the one US proposed. Meanwhile, if insurgents just declare that they will attack any US or UK company workers in Iraq, but will not attack Russia, France, Germany, China or India companies, that will effectively end our hope to tap into Iraqi oil.
That doesn’t matter. In countries without a strong national identity people vote for their own ethnicity/religion. Things will get interesting when this new government tries to get Americans to leave.