Space_Monkey #9

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=607555

So is Iraq heading towards theocracy and/or civil war?

The real winners of the election appear to be al-Sistani and bin Laden. Sistani for forcing the issue of elections will gain even wider appeal and more power.

Bin Laden recieves the beginnings of a large Islamic state. It appears that the Sh'ia will dominate from Lebanon to Iran. Despite the sect differences, it still will be an area governed by "proper" Islamic law. A good chance that Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Jordan will come under pressure by whatever emreges in the future from these elections. He's probably in a cave somewhere laughing his ass off, and praising his greatest ally, "W", for all the gifts the White House have given him.

It's somewhat funny, in removing the Hussein threat from the world, the U.S may have created an even greater monster.

Yeshi

We don't know if it'll be a monster, but if DEMOCRACY wins in Iraq -as the polls now suggest- its headed to a new round of conflicts there:

Sistani's alliance has in it ALL the proponents of throwing the USA out of Iraq asap: that is one of their major political stances. On the other hand, american forces are building costly long-term military bases in there.

So, if the DEMOCRACY is ALLOWED to function in Iraq, USA would have replaced a secular left-oriented Saddam dictatorship with a Ayatollah-governed religious state a lá Iran.

Long live the victory of democracy? hm.. hmmmm.......

Jack the Bodiless

I don't think a theocracy is inevitable, or even especially likely: the Shias would probably rather be a majority in the whole of Iraq rather than ruling over just their part of a fragmented nation. They have pledged to support democracy: that was Sistani's platform, after all.

But, yes, the Americans should be preparing to leave soon.

Derec

So now you are criticizing US for letting Al Sistani win. If Alawi hadwon you'd be criticizing US for Allawi being a US "puppet" and claiming that US "stole" the elections.

Just how can US possibly win with people who would blame US for any possible outcome?

Derec

Oikoman

You should re-read the OP. He's not criticizing the US for 'allowing' Sistani to win (the US didn't even want elections, until Sistani forced them into it), he's enjoying the irony that Bush's much trumpeted election in Iraq is going to bring into power a government that want Bush removed from Iraq as soon as possible.

JoyJuice

I personally expected the US to intervene and control the outcome, I really didn't think they were stupid enough to potentially have two Irans right next to each other.

Chalabi must be grinning from ear to ear, talk about TIME man of the year.

Tani

i think the point is not so much that the u.s. would "allow" al sistani to win or otherwise be installing a "puppet" government but that it has lack the foresight so sorely as to let itself fall into such a predicament.

Derec

So now you're saying they should have stolen the election? :huh:

Derec

Tani

what do you mean? how would that be less of a predicament? the need for an iraqi gov't doesn't spawn from the election but rather the reverse: the election was held because there is a need for an iraqi gov't. unless you mean the u.s. can just annex iraq, the u.s. was already in that predicament before the election.

DougP

The United States started this war and set up the elections, they ARE responsible at the very least in part, for whatever outcome there is in iraq.

-Doug