Comments on: The Sistani option

By: wbb

wbb — Wed, 07 Apr 2004 15:42:30 +0000

excellent commentary Kurdistan is here to stay unless engulfed in an Iraqi civil war of the future. Sistani is sitting back letting the USA take the pain of dealing with the intemperate and the mob. He’s playing his cards well. He’ll step forward when he feels the USA is mired and wants a face saving solution. God knows how the Sunnis and the Shias are going to resolve their tensions after that though. Saddam knew how to keep the peace, shoot lots of people. This method may be used again in Iraq.

By: mitch

mitch — Wed, 07 Apr 2004 14:39:02 +0000

moloko: These were the people I read: 1 2 3. I guess we'll see who's closer to the truth.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Wed, 07 Apr 2004 13:28:13 +0000

raj, my view is that the Kurds have had substantial autonomy for years, and that, at this point, the best neighbouring states can hope for is that they (the Kurds) will settle for this rather than pursuing the (chimerical in my view) push for a new state of Kurdistan.

By: raj

raj — Wed, 07 Apr 2004 12:21:54 +0000

Query whether the neighboring states with substantial Kurdish minorities—Turkey, Syria and Iran—would sit still for a “solution” that gives Kurdish Iraqis virtual autonomy.

By: Motoko

Motoko — Wed, 07 Apr 2004 08:18:09 +0000

The view of Iraqi bloggers seems to be that Sadr is an Iranian proxy and has to be taken on. What a strange thing to say, Mitch. According to Riverbend he has easily over a million followers ("some say four million"). Raed says five to seven million.

By: Shaun Evans

Shaun Evans — Wed, 07 Apr 2004 03:50:02 +0000

My compliments on a fine essay. My only comment is that holding one election is easy. The trick to democracy is to have a second, and a third, and fourth, without falling into a civil war. As, indeed, the US did. While elections are a visible symbol of democracy, there must be an underlying commitment to democratic values. First, people must be secure that losing power will not mean losing one’s life and property in reprisals. Second, there must be a realistic prospect for the losers to regain power. If loyalties are tribally focused, this is unlikely. Finally, there must be negative consequences for those who attempt to gain power through violence, instead of debate.

By: derrida derider

derrida derider — Wed, 07 Apr 2004 01:32:47 +0000

You’re right that the interesting questions are about how to find our way out of this slough of despond, rather than how we ended up in it. But surely an obvious first step is to sack those who led us in to the mire, and who show every sign of getting us more deeply enmired. IOW I think there’s still value in pointing out the consequences of the lies, ignorance and incompetence of our rulers, until we get a change of rulers,

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Tue, 06 Apr 2004 20:53:36 +0000

“Bremer’s decision to take on Sadr” This refers to the closure of the Sadrist newspaper al-Hawza and the arrest of one of Sadr’s associates on a warrant for murder that had been outstanding for many months, with the clear implication that Sadr would also be arrested in the near future. All this preceded Sadr’s call to arms, and has been seen by most commentators as a deliberate decision to eliminate Sadr before June 30. Juan Cole has the most detailed discussion.

By: PJB

PJB — Tue, 06 Apr 2004 19:51:50 +0000

It doesn’t really matter what format is adopted. Chalabi is the next Boss of Iraq. The “democracy” is just window dressing.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Tue, 06 Apr 2004 18:42:54 +0000

“Bremer’s decision to take on Sadr (the latest in a series of disastrous misjudgements on his part).” I don’t understand this formulation. When a leader tells his followers to take up arms and kill as anyone who trys to help the US establish a government, how can you think of that as a “Bremer’s decision to take on Sadr.” But that aside, do you specifically dislike the formulation of the interim Constitution? It seems to have a pretty dynamic balance.

By: Lawrence

Lawrence — Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:24:48 +0000

If one of the necessary outcomes is improved U.S. security, how do we pull out on June 30? What’s to keep the Sunni triangle from becoming a base for international terrorists?

By: John Isbell

John Isbell — Tue, 06 Apr 2004 13:19:29 +0000

Josh Marshall has a new quote from Bush suggesting that June 30th is now less set in stone than one might think. Don’t discount yet another flip-flop.

By: Don Quijote

Don Quijote — Tue, 06 Apr 2004 12:44:14 +0000

There will not be a two state solution, the Turks will never accept a Kurdish State, a it would encourage the Kurds ( ~1/5 of the population) in Turkey to rebel and join the new state.

By: mitch

mitch — Tue, 06 Apr 2004 12:32:00 +0000

Who says the government has to be “Islamist”? How many Shiites want that? Does Sistani himself want it? The view of Iraqi bloggers seems to be that Sadr is an Iranian proxy and has to be taken on.

By: Andrew Boucher

Andrew Boucher — Tue, 06 Apr 2004 12:05:38 +0000

“I’m going to try hard from now on to avoid debating whether the war with Iraq was a mistake, and to focus on the question of what should be done from here onwards.” Thank you! Some comments on a very good post: 1/ I’d agree that elections are better sooner rather than later. They are also in U.S. interests, since later allows more time for the situation in Iraq to deteriorate, which will tend to radicalize rather than soften the electorate. 2/ Since you’re creating an all-in-one package, I’m not sure about what you would say about transfer of sovereignty for 30 June. Irrespective of elections, I’d say this should be done come Hell or high water – even if this is what Bush is proposing – because it is important that the U.S. get out of being an occupying power asap (even if in fact, after the transfer of sovereignty, it will be exercising a certain amount of control…). 3/ “I think it’s appropriate for allied governments to drop the “we broke it, we own it” line and announce that they will not continue to support the occupation beyond June 30 in the absence of a change of policy.” Probably the part I disagree most strongly in the post. This strikes me as all stick and no carrot. Allied governments should also announce what they’re willing to put in – men and money – should certain (realistic) conditions in Iraq be met. Otherwise it’s just not serious.