Replies

I have been one that has written perhaps more then ten thousand lines of good news reports, echoing in some detail all the good things that have happened in Iraq since the invasion. Surely as far as I am concerned more good then bad has happened if one is carefull to weight all the activities.
Many of Southacks points some of us have given details many many times over the past two years with article references to back up what we have attempted to communicate to our Freeper readership.
So all S has commented on in his last entry I would back up, with out any reservation. And I am sure non in this particular reponse lists would have much objection to the validity in what S is saying.
However, strategofr's comment that things are not looking good in Iraq, please correct me if I am wrong, deals not with all the great things seldom published, that have come to be, the country is quiet as a frigen churchmouse in many areas, including many that where previously hell holes at best.
But I believe he is speaking about the current political atmosphere. In which we have no way around it, but to realize the main Shia parties within and supporting the UIA (United Iraqi Alliance), comprised in the majority by the large SCIRI and Dawa parties continue to fight the idea of sharing power in the future government.
They realize due to their majority that by numbers mostly Shia will be elected to ministry posts and other positions that represent leadership/control.
Clearly Jafarri is now back in the limelight. Where we thought he may just drop out, it now appears he will retain his PM post. If he retains the post, then by default, most of the ministry posts are going to go to Shia. Members of either the SCIRI or Dawa parties or affiliates that will lend allegience to a Shia (Sadrist/Hakim) philosophy, e.g. Sharia law and as little secular government as possible.
In short. Along the lines of what we see in Iran.
Seeing this will come to past, guys like Talabani the current president, of course a kurd, will go along with things once he sees the point of no return has been reached simply to hold onto his position. And I would not be the least bit surprised if these things come to be, we shall see changes whether constitutional or not, that will split the country into three parts as many have wailed and moaned about and others have championed for whatever reason I cannot phantom, other then it could somehow bring about a sort of peace, by splitting them up, and letting them each self govern.
But that is totally against the prefered end goal of having one Iraq under a federal government that will govern fairly for all Iraqis. Whereby, it can become a US partner, rebuild, start pumping a lot of oil for the world market, with the aid of large influxes of foreign investments.
Gain a point in time it could be accepted into NATO for instance. In short become a good allie in the ME, for many good reasons.
I am being a bit verbose to cover some bases as to why a single Iraqi secular government for all Iraq with minimal influence by the sectarian elements represent the best end goal.
Now. Is this going to happen if the Shia take over? I doubt it. By virtue of what we see in the SCIRI and Dawa parties it is evident they want sectarianism (theocracy) to end up being the form of government in Iraq. They will arrange for it to come to past. A little deviation here, a little there, and presto in no time all hopes of having Iraqi become a strong secular industrialized country that we can work with will go out the window. Think Iran less a super hard Mullah controlled government. But on that eventually could come to past.
Of course that will entail over a period of time further breakdowns in how their constitution is viewed and interpreted. The dominant Shia Supreme Judicial Council will eventually turn from a position of being a supreme court into a new theocratic government as things are changed, to prevent future elective processes from taking place, or the secularist always being in a minority, as well as the Sunni, commie, and some other minor parties will never make a dent in anything that goes on. The majority Shia will rule with an iron hand.
And most likely they will not favor keeping good relations with the US and Britain. If anything they will invite the Russians back into the camp. And play both sides like a fiddle to a degree, while the Russian's and US try to do the same with them. A loss for what the US and it's allies had envisioned taking place. Figure China will get in the loop to if the Russians are invited back in.
So the issue of things not going well has nothing to do with how much or military has been able to accomplish.
It has to do with the current dangerouse conditions within the government as how the majority refuse to accept the concept of a balanced government.
And why should they. They by majority, yes there was provable voter fraud, that could have swung some totals, but the UIA has the country by the throat at present. The Kurds watch with interest to see what their move will be.
In my opinion. The Kurds have only gone along with things because they have the current presidency, and enough party blocks that can form less then a majority to in some cases with association from say Allawi's party etc., attempt to make an impact in the final result. But the final result is not going to favor them by all indications.
And they will pull out like flies subjected to bug spray if they see they cannot gain an equal say in the future Iraq, and take their chances to set up their own government fully independent from Iraq, and surely attempt to take over the northern oil fields and cities that once where mostly their peoples domain prior to Saddam displacing so many of them and putting Arabs into their lands, homes etc..
So I do not at this point see things going well for a future secular government that will represent all Iraqis on an equal basis. And that is what I believe Strategofr may have made comment to in far fewer words. Of course he must speak for himself on the matter.

"So I do not at this point see things going well for a future secular government that will represent all Iraqis on an equal basis."

Politicians say many extreme things over time, so I understand why you are noting the above situation.

But prior to a real "civil war," politicians typically do something simple: they leave. Witness Southern politicians' flight from Washington, D.C. in December of 1860.

On the other hand, if you ignore the utterances of vapid politicians and simply look at actions, Iraq looks to be in great shape.

The Kurds aren't declaring independence. The Shia aren't calling for wholesale genocide of their age-old Sunni oppressors.

And the minority Sunnis are *over-represented* in the new Iraqi government.

Keep in mind that Iraqi Shia are Arabs. In contrast, Iranian Shia are Persians. True, the Shia in both nations share the same religion...but so too do the Catholics of France share the same religion with Poles...as do Jews in Israel share with Jews in Ethipoia...yet entirely different races/cultures are in play anyway.

So while a cursory glance at Iraqi Shia could cause someone to claim that a Shia government in Iraq would be the lapdog of Shia Iran, a closer look will reveal that the Arab Shia have been at war with the Persian Shia for Millenia...before there even was a Shia the Arabs and Persians were engaged in race/culture wars that continue to this very day.

Which is to say, Arab Shia aren't going to be ruled by Persian Shia. In fact, that sort of Iranian influence is disdained by most Arabs. This is tribal. It's racial. It's cultural...and it pre-dates Islam itself.

So Iraq's Arab Shia want U.S. protection from Iran's Persian Shia. This protection can only be had in today's current climate so long as Iraq's Shia play ball with a non-fundamental government...which is what Iraq has had for decades...actually, centuries.

In the North, the Kurds want U.S. protection from Turkey's Army. The Kurds can bloody the Turks, but the Kurds can't win an all out war with the Turks...but with the U.S. offering protection, the Kurds are golden. All that the Kurds have to do is to play ball with the U.S. regarding the new Iraqi government...something that the Kurds have long done (e.g. to survive during Hussein's rule).

In the Sunni triangle, the Sunni's have much more difficult problems. If the U.S. leaves, then nothing is stopping the Kurds and/or Shia from wiping out the Sunnis...and no one would be urging the Kurds and Shia to continue sharing their oil revenues with the oil-less Sunnis.

Moreover, the Iraqi Sunnis aren't Wahhabists. They are mad about the U.S. invasion *not* because of religious reasons, but because the U.S. kicked them out of their priveledged jobs/positions in the old Hussein government...which is not the sort of thing that makes for generational warfare. Fighting about jobs seldom lasts even a single generation.

...And if the Sunnis divide up Iraq, then the Sunnis get no oil money. The Sunni triangle is oil-less.

In short, all 3 parties in Iraq need U.S. protection. The Kurds from the Turks. The Arab Shia from the Persians. The Sunnis from the Kurds and Shia.

If they play ball with the U.S., then the Kurds get a near autonomous homeland in Northern Iraq (they just have to play like Taiwan via China at never declaring an open independence). The Sunnis get to share the Kurds and Shia's oil money, and the Shia get to rule all of Iraq including all of the major Shia holy sites in the world.

If they don't play ball, then the Kurds are at war with Turkey, the Arab Shia with Persian Shia, and the Sunnis lose their oil money as well as have to fend off the 80% of Iraq that comprises the Kurds and Shia.

This is classic "carrot and stick."

Each party gets big-time rewards for playing along...and big-time wars and loss of monies if they don't.

And that's why the Iraqi politicians aren't just going home ala Southern politicians in 1860 U.S.A.

This is why they are talking out their differences and actually playing (gasp, shock, cough) politics with each other.