Sunni second thoughts

From the WaPost (via MSNBC) further news that Sunni leaders are reconsidering their initial attempts to frustrate the creation of a new constitution:

Influential Sunni Arab leaders of a boycott of last week's elections expressed a new willingness Friday to engage the coming Iraqi government and play a role in writing the constitution, in what may represent a strategic shiftin thinking among mainstream anti-occupation groups. The signs remain tentative, and even advocates of such change suggestthat much will depend on the posture the new government takes toward theinsurgency and the removal of former Baath Party officials from state institutions. But in statements and interviews, some Sunni leaders said the sectarian tension that surged ahead of the vote had forced them to rethink their stance.

[...]

The Association of Muslim Scholars, one of the most influential groups, sent mixed signals this week — saying it would respect the election results, while arguing that the new government will lack the legitimacy to draft a constitution. But the sermon Friday at the association's headquarters, the Um al-Qura mosque, was decidedly conciliatory. Directing most of his words at the new government, the preacher called Iraq its "trusteeship" and said the people's welfare was "a great responsibility on your shoulders."

A meeting Thursday at the home of a Sunni elder statesman that brought together some largely Sunni groups, including those that boycotted theelections, produced an agreement to participate in drafting the constitution, "without condition," said Nadhmi, one of those in attendance.

A spokesman for the Iraqi Islamic Party, which withdrew from Sunday's vote but still was listed on the ballot, said that its members would not enter parliament but that the party would not object if independent candidates who were included on its list took seats.

The article also mentions "grass-roots" grumbling among those who followed the guidance to boycott the elections and now feel they have damaged their own legitimacy rather than that of the election:

The shift in thinking appears to have arisen from a calculation that the election may have created a new dynamic in Iraq, as the country slowly moves past an emphasis on the U.S. occupation and more toward the blueprint of a future state. The groups do not speak for the insurgency, but the Association of Muslim Scholars, in particular, holds great sway in the Sunni Arab community in central and western Iraq, where there are signs of grass-roots discontent over the boycott.

[...]

In part, the Sunni and nationalist groups may be playing to their own constituencies. By all accounts, the Sunni turnout was far lower than that of Shiites and Kurds, although Sunni leaders debate whether that was a result of intimidation or adherence to calls for a boycott. But some residents in such Sunni towns as Ramadi and Tikrit have suggested there may be regrets over the choice. The disappointment seems strongest in urban areas, which have proved less sympathetic to the insurgency than the countryside.

The insurgents "made fools of us," said Mahmoud Ghasoub, a businessman in Baiji, a restive northern town. "They voted to disrupt the elections but failed. Now we have lost both tracks. We did not vote, nor did they disrupt the elections."

I would imagine there are moderate Sunni leaders who believe that an interim government demand for a withdrawal timetable from the U.S. has more chance for success than continued insurgent attacks that primarily kill other Iraqis and foment sectarian tension.

Also in the news today: an article from the NY Times discusses Shiite thoughts on the role of Islam and Shariah within the constitution.

From the U.S. perspective, the best outcome likely involves a compromise agreement between devout Shiites, secularists, respected Sunnis, and the Kurds. It needs to reflect Iraqi concerns much more than international (or U.S.) concerns at this point in order to gain enough legitimacy. I would imagine some sort of framework for the U.S. withdrawal will emerge as well. Such a withdrawal framework will (hopefully) reduce the appeal of the insurgency without pushing the U.S. out before Iraqi government forces are capable of dealing with hardline insurgents.

Update:

Greg at the Belgravia Dispatch offers a similar analysis of this Sunni change of heart.

Also, check out this insightful take on al-Sistani and his powers if influence within Iraq from Steve at the Red Zone:

But the important point is this: the Pope and the Ayatollah both represent freedom. Not just abstract bromides about "religious freedom," but active, political, muscular freedom--freedom standing up and thrusting its fist in the face of tyranny. Lech Walensa, who initiated the revolution that toppled the Soviet Union, and has described how the Pope's first pilgrimage to his native country forged a sense of solidarity among the Polish people. In the same way, when Sistani in October declared it the "religious duty" of Iraqis to vote, he, too, provided a spiritual context--if not sanction--for the yearnings of millions of people to rise up and demand control of their destinies.

Iraq
Elections