Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
The results will be that the "Shiite list" will win slightly less than half of the 275 seat in Parliament (120-130). With just another few votes, the Shiites will be able to push through whatever they choose. If they choose to disaffect the Sunnis (by appointing Shiites to all the important posts like Interior Ministry and Oil Ministry, or by pushing through religious laws alien to the Sunnis for example) then Iraq will head down the path towards civil war. If they choose to embrace the Sunnis then they should be able to peel off all except foreign provovateurs and the most die-hard Baathists.QUOTE]

Actually this is not quite true. First, you're proceeding on a false assumption: that the Shiites are united in their beliefs and their potential choices for important government posts. I think it is clear to anyone who has been following the power struggles within the Shiite leadership over the past 2 years that this is certainly not the case. Secondly, because of the increased Sunni participation, the "Shiite list", which is actually comprised of several separatie organizations, will have to align with either some of the Sunni or Kurdish representatives to even form a government, since they will almost definitely fall short of the majority needed to form a government on their own (which would be unlikely to happen even if they had 60% of the parliamentary seats).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I think you're being unduly cynical here.

---

Quote:

---

I can't help but feel that the creation of a new Al Qaeda breeding ground, the destruction of the Iraqi infastructure, and feuling of anti-American sentiment worldwide, which has allowed socialists to gain power in Spain, Brazil, and now Bolivia, plus of course 2000 American lives and countless Iraqis is a very high price to pay.

---

Quote:

---

Iraq is disintegrating. The first results from the parliamentary election last week show the country is dividing between Shia, Sunni and Kurdish regions.

Religious fundamentalists now have the upper hand. The secular and nationalist candidate backed by the US and Britain was humiliatingly defeated.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Hmmm. Dutch, the picture you paint is not pretty by any means. Having heard of scams by both Halliburton and local (Iraq-based) contractors, it seems to me that there is no honest place for the USA to spend its $$ except the USA military. And for some reason Rumsfeld and Cheney look reluctant to do that. I was under the impression that they have a notion of contracting out/ "privatizing" the military as much as possible.

I have another question for you: My understanding is that the Iraqi "insurgents" are actually made of several groups, including foreign fighters, dissatisfied Sunnis and al Sadrists. Just focusing on the Sunnis, do you have any insight as to WHAT they are fighting for? Is it American troop w/drawal? An "in" on the political (bribery) process? Destruction of the current Shiite-based government? Creation of an independent Sunni nation? Or something else? In other words- what achievement would make them stop?

Thanks for you insight. Just wanted to let you know that you're appreciated for your service to our country.

And BTW- MERRY XMAS and HAPPY HOLIDAYS to our troops in Iraq and elsewhere, and to all my friends and fellow debators here on FFF.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dutch508:
The political situation in Iraq can be boiled down to this:

Everyone is out for themselves.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- Every time someone compares Iraq to Vietnam I get a little shiver down my spine.

---

Quote:

---

Parliament requires a 2/3s vote to elect a president, who must appoint a prime minister from the coalition with a simple majority. I figure 2/3s as about 184 votes. Allawi and the Sunni Arabs probably won't have more than 50 or 55 seats all told, leaving around 220. The Kurds will have about 50. If we subtract them, we come down to 170. Therefore, an Allawi/Sunni boycott would force the Shiites into another coalition with the Kurds if they are to form a government, and the Kurds can extract promises moderating Shiite fundamentalist policies before they agree. Since the Rejectionist Conference is alleging fraud in "northern cities," probably a euphemism for Kirkuk, it may in fact push the Kurds to ally with the Shiites again, since both have an interest in protecting their electoral victories in their provinces. On the other hand, if the Kurds and the Shiites can do business, then the Allawi/Sunni boycott would become meaningless and would simply deprive them of a vote in parliament.

Once a Shiite-dominated government is formed, the United Iraqi Alliance could simply vote down its rivals by simple majority, though it would risk a presidential veto if it failed to get a consensus. The president (who likely will be a Kurd and likely will be Jalal Talabani) and the two vice presidents (likely a Sunni Arab and a Shiite) each can exercise a separate veto over legislation for the next 4 years. If the Kurds and the Shiites can find a pliable and complaisant Sunni Arab to serve as vice president, though, they could just run roughshod over the Sunni Arab and secularist minority.

Generally speaking, in parliamentary systems boycotts usually backfire and a poor political strategy. If the Sunni Arabs and secularists were smart, they'd make themselves swing votes in parliament and use their economic power to lobby for policies they want, thus leveraging themselves into great influence. The Sunni Arabs and ex-Baathists were used, however, to ruling by the iron fist from above, and so are hardly canny parliamentarians, and don't know how to make themselves indispensable as a minority.

---

Quote:

---

What do the Sunni want? They want Sadam back and to be in power again.

---

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON, Dec 26 (IPS) - The George W. Bush administration has embarked on a new effort to pressure Iraq's militant Shiite party leaders to give up their control over internal security affairs that could lead the Shiites to reconsider their reliance on U.S. troops.

The looming confrontation is the result of U.S. concerns about the takeover of the Interior Ministry by Shiites with close ties to Iran, as well as the impact of officially sanctioned sectarian violence against Sunnis who support the insurgency. The Shiite leaders, however, appear determined to hold onto the state's organs of repression as a guarantee against restoration of a Baathist regime.... If Abdul Aziz al-Hakin and other SCIRI leaders feel they have to choose between relying on U.S. military protection and the security of their regime, they are likely to choose the latter. They could counter U.S. pressures by warning they will demand a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops if the United States continues to interfere in such politically sensitive matters.

---

Quote:

---

If they choose to disaffect the Sunnis (by appointing Shiites to all the important posts like Interior Ministry and Oil Ministry, or by pushing through religious laws alien to the Sunnis for example) then Iraq will head down the path towards civil war

---