See...? He's not ALL bad (Updated).

The eminent Dr. Cole, putting aside the numerous massive conspiracies he's been tracking for us of late, provides two insightful articles on the upcoming Iraqi elections.

Here, he talks of Grand Ayatollah's likely influence and goals for post-election government (managing to stoop to only 1(!) snide comment on America - you'll have to visit his site to catch that, however. You go, prof!):

Based on past evidence, my guess is that Sistani will push for personal status law to be religious. It governs marriage, divorce, inheritance, alimony, etc. Sistani will want Shiites to be under Shiite religious law, Chaldean Catholics to be under Catholic canon law, Sunnis to be under Sunni shariah or Islamic codes, etc. This system is also used in Lebanon and Israel. It has disadvantages for women, and it causes an entanglement of the state with religion, since typically the clergy are the arbiters of it.

Sistani will also likely want a fairly strong Federal state, more like France than like Switzerland, which will bring him into conflict with the Kurds.

If a parliament/ constitutional assembly can be elected January 30, it will then have to open all the cans of worms in Iraq at once as it crafts the permanent constitution.

Yeah...he has to throw in a little bit of negativism there at the end...but the point is valid. Bringing all three major factions together and meeting all of their demands will not be an easy task.

Next, he talks about Shiite efforts to avoid civil war, the low number of expatriate Iraqis registering to vote, and the idea of a new Iraqi government dictating a withdrawal timeline to American forces (something I think is certainly possible. And, as Juan elaborates, this could place us between a rock and a hard place if we pull out before the differing factions are ready to do anything but annihilate each other):

The Guardian asked a number of Iraqi politicians and observers of Iraq what they thought of the idea of a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from the country. The idea is obviously growing in popularity. I expressed my anxiety about a repeat of India 1947 or Palestine 1948-- i.e. massive bloodshed, political partition, and subsequently several wars. Interestingly, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim seems to favor it, but underlines that it should be an Iraqi decision.

Am I cherry-picking to make the prof seem reasonable and perhaps even optimistic? Of course I am. But that's my perogative, right...? Okay, fine...here we find him going off the deep end discussing how we should have kept the Iraqi army intact and withdrawn...before offhandedly mentioning that, oh yeah, a lot of Shiites really want us there. Masterfully done! I'm sure the Baathist-led Iraqi army would have taken every step to protect the interests of the Shiite majority once we withdrew....

Had the US not dissolved the Iraqi army, I'd be out in the streets now demanding an immediate US withdrawal. The failures of the Fallujah campaign made it amply clear that the US armed forces are unlikely to make headway against the guerrilla insurgency, and in the meantime are just making hundreds of thousands of Iraqis more angry. You will note that Sistani, who is not shy about these things, has not demanded an immediate withdrawal of US forces. In fact, I was told by a US observer of the scene in Najaf that a member of the marja'iyyah asked the US to take care of the Mahdi Army for them last summmer.

So what do you s'pose Juan would have been out in the street yelling if Saddam was still in power and continuing to starve his populace while reaping the benefits from the Oil-for-food program and smuggling? What would he have been out in the street yelling if one of Saddam's twisted sons had succeeded him and conducted a bloody purge? How about if there'd been a coup followed by bloody civil war and ethnic cleansing? What would the call have been then? Just curious.


Update:

Perhaps I spoke too soon? Yes, the conventional wisdom among the Arab press (I talked about that here) and among folks such as Juan is that Fallujah is viewed (by Iraqis) as a huge mistake and delegitimized the government. I'll admit to leaning that way myself (although I questioned how much legitimacy that government had to begin with among those who supported the insurgent network in and around Fallujah). Take a look at this article from the LA Times:

Some voters won't forgive Allawi's role in the attacks. "I wouldn't even think about voting for someone who killed my cousins and brothers in Fallouja, Mosul and many other parts of Iraq," said Mohammed Aadhami, 36, a Baghdad engineer and Sunni Muslim.

But election experts say the crackdowns helped boost Allawi's popularity by portraying him as a strong leader willing to make tough decisions. Polls taken after Fallouja showed a dramatic rise in his ratings [emphasis added by yours truly].

"He may not have been popular with Fallouja at the time, but he took a strong action. He took leadership. That's what people want to see," said one Western election expert in Baghdad who asked not to be identified.

Now considering all the hub-bub Juan made about polls previously, how will he choose to read this one...?

Update 2:

Juan offers an unsurprising reply:

People have been asking what I thought of the International Republican Institute poll that 61 percent of Iraqis think Allaw has been "effective" in running the country. I find this result hard to believe. Last September an IRI poll found Allawi's favorability rating was 47 percent and that of Muqtada al-Sadr was 45 percent. IRI did not release the second finding, and my social science friends in Baghdad thought IRI's polling techniques appallingly bad. I flatly disbelieve that Allawi's favorability rating has risen since September. Since IRI is selective in releasing its results and doesn't seem to be running a tight ship in its Baghdad office anyway, it is hard to know what their poll results actually mean and how solidly based they are.

In other words, it doesn't agree with his beliefs so it must be wrong. Back in September, it was valid because he agreed. Now? Those guys are just full of hot air!


Iraq