Give Sistani the keys to Iraq; - and just come home!

BWhite · 2005-01-05 12:45:57

The http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp … 1485]Iraqi Shia centered on their holy city of Najaf are not puppets of Iranian masters according to this article.

Still the United States cannot give up its obsession over Iran. Rather than attacking Iraqi Shiites, they have been trying to attack Iran on the false assumption that Iraqi Shiites are being supported by the Iranian state and derive all of their power from Tehran. The accepted theory seems to be that if Iran is destroyed, the power of the Iraqi Shiites will atrophy.
The American theory is something Iraqi Shiites view with wry amusement. They know with absolute certainty that the center of religious authority in the Shiite world is gradually migrating to Iraq - most particularly the long-established center of Shiite scholarship, Najaf. If the Iraqi Shiites come to power it is they who will eventually be influencing the Iranians, not the other way around.

The sad thing is we could have given control of Iraq to Sistani's followers 18 months ago, and started to withdraw. Okay, he is an Islamic cleric but the Najaf Shia are one of the more moderate strains of all Islam. But no, Paul Bremer wanted an Iraq that would be proud of a blue & white flag and recognize Israel. And now we have a FUBAR on our hands.

A peaceful, prosperous and secular Iraq? A terrific goal, but in the immortal words of Meatloaf - - two out of three (peaceful & prosperous) ain't bad. Now, if we postpone the elections or if Allawi's slate wins what is seen as a rigged eelction, I predict a Shia firestorm that will make today's insurgency seem like a birthday candle.

More from the article:

However, it is the Bush administration and its neoconservative members who are the most frightened of all. They have convinced themselves that a Shiite victory in the election will result in the unambiguous failure of their Iraqi adventure. This will supposedly come about because the victorious Shiites will ally themselves with Iran and start taking orders from Tehran. They will supposedly then establish a religious dictatorship, persecute the Sunnis, overrun the Kurds, and kick the American military out of their land.
All of these catastrophe scenarios are unwarranted - unless the attacks against the Shiites become so acute that they touch off a cycle of revenge, and an eventual civil war.

Have the elections, cede power to Sistani, and prepare to withdraw.

Edited By BWhite on 1104950832

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-05 13:12:24

The Iraqi Shia centered on their holy city of Najaf are not puppets of Iranian masters according to this article.

Again, we're dealing with oversimplification of matters. Of course not every Shiite in Iraq is a doing the bidding of the Mullahs in Tehran. A few are, but not most. The vast majority of them aren't even fighting us. They want the whole thing over, preferably with a government that won't kill them for looking at a government official the wrong way. The Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds aren't homogenized blocks with tight agendas they pursue, they're just people like everyone else with a wide range of objectives.

If it were so simple we could just kill them all with a clear conscience and get on with our lives.

Now, if we postpone the elections or if Allawi's slate wins what is seen as a rigged eelction, I predict a Shia firestorm that will make today's insurgency seem like a birthday candle.

So now these people, who according to opposition reasoning neither want "democracy" nor are capable of it, people who have lived under a brutal thug murder for decades, will all of a sudden get into a boiling rage over a rigged election?!.

Again, most of the people aren't interested in fighting another war, the insurgency has not been able to generate the kind of broad support they had hoped for, or that the news media frequently implies. The vast majority of people aren't going to rise up in a massive revolt unless we get one hell of a lot nastier while weakening our presence.

Most don't like us being there, but most don't hate us either. It's a very important distinction.

Have the elections, cede power to Sistani, and prepare to withdraw.

The Sistani option may have been the best available to us a year ago, but we're past that point now. Any such move will now be seen as a sign of weakness and will encourage our enemies. Watch al Qaeda's morale rise after that, watch their recruitment rise when they can tout the weakness of the "Great Satan", any policy that is at its core "cut and run" is profound folly at this point.

Palomar · 2005-01-05 13:23:25

*I initially read this as "Give Satan the keys to --"

:hm: But I've been reading Carl G. Jung's works lately, so I guess just about anything is possible. Darned Shadow. :-\

--Cindy

MarsDog · 2005-01-05 14:09:05

US needs to move on to Iran and North Korea.

Other trouble spots will develop after.

BWhite · 2005-01-05 15:23:39

The Sistani option may have been the best available to us a year ago, but we're past that point now. Any such move will now be seen as a sign of weakness and will encourage our enemies. Watch al Qaeda's morale rise after that, watch their recruitment rise when they can tout the weakness of the "Great Satan", any policy that is at its core "cut and run" is profound folly at this point.

bin Laden hates Sistani as much as he hates the US, perhaps more, since Shia are Muslims who have fallen from the true path. The rest of us who were never Muslim to begin with are merely infidels. Playing the Shia against al Qaeda seems like a sensible strategy.

Why has there been little insurgency in the Shia regions?

IMHO, because they have been ordered to lie low and keep their powder dry. Sadr's little uprising is only a small taste of what the Shia might do. The summer after we invaded, I recall reports that Hamas and Hezbollah were busy as beavers building cells and infrastructure throughout southeastern Iraq and were under strict orders NOT to engage, confront or antagonize the Americans.

Cut & run? No.

Negotiate a timetable to withdraw with a genuinely elected government of Iraq. All the better if its Sistani's slate that wins the election since those same Hamas and Hezbollah fighters who have been lying low these past few years can then be called upon (by Sistani & Sadr) to defend the new government from the Sunni insurgents. I suspect the best Shia fighters are not joining the national guard and those who have joined are proving to not be the most reliable of fighters.

Allawi, lacking a core constituency, has no local resources for a credible military except the US and if we prop him up for too long and provoke the Shia to join the insurgency against the government, we may soon face a military debacle of nightmare-ish proportions.

= = =

Cobra, I agree that elections are very premature if we seek a secular westernized Iraq, however can we cancel elections now? I see no good outcome from that.

The original decision to call for elections in January 2005, without a plan to cede control to a Sistani favored faction, reveals a spectacular failure of foresight. IMHO, as always.

= = =

Invade Iran? Yeah, right.

You and what army? The US military has its hands full, today.

MarsDog · 2005-01-05 17:23:10

The British ran their empire in a more pragmatic manner. Divide and conquer.
That was also the original US plan in picking Saddam's side.
Saddam did not do as told, so it was time for another.
Do the US troops want to die for the Impossible Democracy of Iraq ?

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-05 20:36:39

bin Laden hates Sistani as much as he hates the US, perhaps more, since Shia are Muslims who have fallen from the true path. The rest of us who were never Muslim to begin with are merely infidels. Playing the Shia against al Qaeda seems like a sensible strategy.

Absolutely, and we have an opportunity here to set opposition factions against one another and let them bloody themselves to exhaustion. But... we have to do it in a way that does us minimal harm in the process. Simply handing the country over to Sistani and leaving, if nothing else gives al Qaeda and militant Islam in general a huge propaganda coup. "Infidels driven from the lands of Islam" and all that. Outright civil war is better for us than this scenario.

Ideally we'd have a solution that let's the Iraqis proudly think they're winning the fight themselves while minimizing our efforts and making clear to the enemy that our resolve is unwavering. But as you say, two out of three ain't bad.

Why has there been little insurgency in the Shia regions?
IMHO, because they have been ordered to lie low and keep their powder dry.

So they're all insurgents-in-waiting, just biding their time until the perfect moment to strike? That makes it easy, just nuke 'em all then. Provoke 'em first, for an aura of legitimacy.

Either they're just people trying to get on with their lives, in which case the vast bulk aren't going to fight us or they're all terrorists and we're perfectly justified killing every last one. Can't have it both ways.

Negotiate a timetable to withdraw with a genuinely elected government of Iraq.

Isn't that the current plan?

Oh, I see. Right now the "genuinely elected government" is the key, rather than the "timetable to withdraw". Yep, declare that we'll leave in six months and watch the insurgency virtually disappear. Until the last American boot leaves Iraqi soil, then all hell breaks loose.

Allawi, lacking a core constituency, has no local resources for a credible military except the US and if we prop him up for too long and provoke the Shia to join the insurgency against the government, we may soon face a military debacle of nightmare-ish proportions.

But if he's elected we won't be propping him up, not any more than we "prop up" many other sovereign states with whom we are allied. If the election is fair and participation is fairly high the majority will support the elected government, otherwise it wouldn't have been elected in the first place. The Shia probably win out by default, being an overwhelming majority. Even if they don't all agree with the elected government's policies they have the common bond of being Shia in a nation recently ruled buy brutal Sunnis. What's their motivation for suddenly rising up en masse to destroy the country?

Cobra, I agree that elections are very premature if we seek a secular westernized Iraq, however can we cancel elections now? I see no good outcome from that.

Which is precisley why I opposed elections so soon in the first place, once we commit to a timetable our options narrow. We're locked in. We have to go through with it now, and if that new government asks us to leave we have to.

Or get full-on Roman on their asses, but Americans aren't that kind of people, for both good and bad reasons.

Commodore · 2005-01-05 21:01:51

The mullahs barely have a leg to stand on in there own country, and that leg is the army, and if they use it, the shiite will really hit the fan.

If we get the Iraqi army and burocracy trained, we can leave with the faith that the vast majority of the Iraqi "insurgents" have what they want, an Iraq free of foriegn occupiers.

The hard core terrorists will find that their funding, support and fighters will dry up, and the situation will be little different than, say, Turkey.

BWhite · 2005-01-05 21:11:13

So they're all insurgents-in-waiting, just biding their time until the perfect moment to strike? That makes it easy, just nuke 'em all then. Provoke 'em first, for an aura of legitimacy.

Dude, first we need a hydrogen economy. Just like John Kerry said last June.

Want to stop worrying about Islam? Kick the petroleum habit. Until then, we cannot "just nuke 'em" - - setting morality aside.

Either they're just people trying to get on with their lives, in which case the vast bulk aren't going to fight us or they're all terrorists and we're perfectly justified killing every last one. Can't have it both ways.

Well, if insurgent means not wanting to be subject to puppets selected by Uncle Sam, then yes I believe they are all insurgents. They want us to leave them alone also.

But remember, Sistani is one crafty dude. He didn't survive Saddam's rule as clerical leader of the Shia by turning to violence, or by caving in to Saddam. The Shia are the majority and they know it. So they have largely avoided violence, except for that one outburst by Sadr.

(As an aside, Sadr's uprising was more to challenge Sistani as leader of the Shia than to challenge the United States. Sadr, with Iranian backing, was opposed to Sistani's non-violence based diplomatic approach to the US presence. Wheels within wheels. - - Sistani won that episode hands down.)

If Allawi's slate genuinely wins, Sistani will know it well before the Coalition does (Sistani will trust his own "exit polls" more than Halliburton's) and I believe he will accept those results because his authority did not arise from wielding military power. Under Saddam he had ZERO military power and he still became a powerful leader.

If Allawi's slate wins a majoroity of the votes "fair and square - - in Sistani's judgment" then I believe he will continue to attempt to suppress violence by the Shia militia. He will tell them to accept the vote, IMHO. After all, the majority of Iraqis will have spoken even with the Sunnis sitting it out.

If Sistani's slate wins (but the US fudges the numbers so Allawi is declared winner) Sistani will know that also. The US press can wail and spin all they want but Sistani will likely lose his ability (and incentive) to keep the Shia militias in check. Folks like Sadr will gain popularity.

My main point? We must play fair with Sistani and be willing to accept his slate if it wins, otherwise the insurgency will explode come February. We must grit our teeth and do this even though Sunni clerics have issued fatwas saying it is a sin to vote and Shia clerics are saying its a sin not to vote, all of which kinda points to which way the polls are heading.

BWhite · 2005-01-05 21:16:56

The original point of the quoted article is that the Najaf Shia (Iraq) and the Qom Shia (Iran) do not see eye to eye. The Najaf Shia do not favor direct clerical rule as currently practiced in Iran. But they are very Islamic - - no alcohol and no porn for example.

If we empower the Najaf Shia (meaning Sistani over Sadr) that can be used to undermine the Iranian Shia. If we stiff- arm Sistani and impose our puppet as a strongman that will weaken the Najaf Shia and I predict we will soon regret that attempt.

From the original article:

It should be recalled that the spiritual leaders of the Iraqi Shiites are significantly different than the leaders of the Islamic Republic in Iran in their philosophy of government and their conduct of politics.
Shiite religious authority resides in the reputation of a grand ayatollah, whose wisdom, moderate behavior and leadership qualities attract a large number of followers. These followers direct their obligatory religious tithe to their chosen ayatollah, who uses the funds to support charitable works such as orphanages, hospitals and mosques. As a jurisprudent, these ayatollahs also serve as opinion leaders for their followers, issuing their views on all aspects of life, including political affairs.
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leading light of the Iranian Revolution of 1978-1979, made a significant departure from the normal pattern of Shiite leadership. He forcefully stated, in a doctrine known as Wilayet al-Faquih, that religious leaders should hold temporal power in the absence of the 12th Shiite Imam, Mohammad al-Mahdi, who disappeared more than a thousand years ago, but who, Twelver Shiites believe, will one day return.
Every other grand ayatollah in the Shiite world disagreed with Khomeini at the time of the revolution. Some of these religious leaders living in Iran paid for their opposition with house arrest or execution. Although Sistani would be foolish to voice direct opposition to the fundamental philosophy of the government of Iran at this sensitive time, it is clear that he is not interested in holding state power himself, and the hawza, the influential colloquy of religious scholars in Najaf, is of a similar disposition.

Shouldn't this approach be encouraged?

If this assessment of the Najaf Shia is correct, then they are a valuable couterweight both to bin Laden and the Iranian mullahs.

Step #1? We US-ians needs to realize that all Muslims don't look alike.

Edited By BWhite on 1104982008

MarsDog · 2005-01-05 21:21:49

You have to redraw the whole map along ethnic religious lines.
The present borders were drawn to make each country dysfunctional, easily ruled, from the outside, via divide and conquer.

It would have been to the point for US to declare all governments invalid and form a regional council to divide it up into governing regions. Roman Empire reborn. Lot fewer people would have been killed. And everyone would be happier.

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-05 21:33:48

Want to stop worrying about Islam? Kick the petroleum habit. Until then, we cannot "just nuke 'em" - - setting morality aside.

"Nuke their ass and take the gas", as the bumper sticker says. Besides, if they're all insurgents as you've implied then there is little morality that needs setting aside.

But seriously, we cant' kick the petrol habit in the near future and there are a few good reasons why we shouldn't want to, at least not entirely.

Well, if insurgent means not wanting to be subject to puppets selected by Uncle Sam, then yes I believe they are all insurgents. They want us to leave them alone also.

Ah, but "insurgent" actually means someone who is actively fighting the Coaltion forces and the new Iraqi government, how they feel about it is irrelevant in practical terms. If we expect them to love us we're fools, but if we just avoid making the majority hate us to the point of desperation we will win.

If Sistani's slate wins (but the US fudges the numbers so Allawi is declared winner) Sistani will know that also. The US press can wail and spin all they want but Sistani will likely lose his ability (and incentive) to keep the Shia militias in check. Folks like Sadr will gain popularity.

It therefore behooves us to make sure that the election is fair and verifiable by all parties. Precisely what we're trying to do now.

And if it fails the worst thing that happens is civil war, which we can use to our advantage. Not as clean, but it works. We have to really screw the pooch to lose this.

It would have been to the point for US to declare all governments invalid and form a regional council to divide it up into governing regions. Roman Empire reborn. Lot fewer people would have been killed. And everyone would be happier.

In the words of the Prophet, F**kin' a. The biggest mistake made in this war was to get fixated on the idea of "Iraq". Break it into three countries, Shia, Sunni and Kurd. Break it into a dozen if that's what works. Artificial borders require a big stick and a strong arm to keep.

Shouldn't this approach be encouraged?

Is it established that it's not? It's no secret that the Shia will dominate in this election and acceptance of a less secular country than the idealized vision has been grudgingly accepted in most quarters. Sistani having sway is already the default outcome, barring a great big turd between now and the election.

MarsDog · 2005-01-06 00:55:40

Choices:

(1) make the region unstable (like a jet fighter)
(easy to force the bidding of the controller (USA))

(2) Stabilize according to religious and ethnic lines.
Primary concern is local group self interest.

South America Banana Republic policies unfolding in another part of the world ?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-01-05 12:45:57

Re: Give Sistani the keys to Iraq; - and just come home!

#2 2005-01-05 13:12:24

Re: Give Sistani the keys to Iraq; - and just come home!

#3 2005-01-05 13:23:25

Re: Give Sistani the keys to Iraq; - and just come home!

#4 2005-01-05 14:09:05

Re: Give Sistani the keys to Iraq; - and just come home!

#5 2005-01-05 15:23:39

Re: Give Sistani the keys to Iraq; - and just come home!

#6 2005-01-05 17:23:10

Re: Give Sistani the keys to Iraq; - and just come home!

#7 2005-01-05 20:36:39

Re: Give Sistani the keys to Iraq; - and just come home!

#8 2005-01-05 21:01:51

Re: Give Sistani the keys to Iraq; - and just come home!

#9 2005-01-05 21:11:13

Re: Give Sistani the keys to Iraq; - and just come home!

#10 2005-01-05 21:16:56

Re: Give Sistani the keys to Iraq; - and just come home!

#11 2005-01-05 21:21:49

Re: Give Sistani the keys to Iraq; - and just come home!

#12 2005-01-05 21:33:48

Re: Give Sistani the keys to Iraq; - and just come home!

#13 2005-01-06 00:55:40

Re: Give Sistani the keys to Iraq; - and just come home!

Board footer