Political uncertainty, Iraq
"They shoot hostage-rescuers, don't they?" is not the only news story in Iraq these days. (Though I must admit it's a pretty darn' shocking one.)
But check out Zaineb Naji's latest piece for IWPR from Baghdad, as well. It's titled Political uncertainty continues. It's a succinct and professional summary of the situation.
Of course she also mentions the crucial future deadlines against which the current prolongation of political uncertainty needs to be measured:
- Under the country's interim law, the constitution must be drafted by August 15, in order to go to a public referendum in October.
The law does allow for a six-month extension, but that would delay a general election scheduled for December, and the timetable for the eventual withdrawal of Coalition troops from Iraq. [emphasis by HC]
Too bad that last year, when "wunderkind" and Presidential Medal of Freedom (or whatever) winner Jerry Bremer was cobbling together his extremely long-drawn-out and complex scheme for the transition, he made this business of actually forming the transitional government based on January's nationwide elections so cumbersome, eh?
Even worse that the UN apparently let him get away with it.
And so, Iraq carries on with no legitimately constituted government. How long before Sistani calls people out into the streets to protest the continuing obstructionism, I wonder? (And also, perhaps, the accuracy of the ballot-counting process itself, about which allegations continue to swirl and about which his people are certainly well informed...)
I see no way out if this deadlock. The US could pressure the Kurds to make a reasonnable deal, but it looks just like the opposite. It seems that the only way out is for the Shiites to take it to the streets again. But then it remains to be seen whether these protests can remain as peaceful as they have been until now ? At Znet, Gilbert Achcar has a very interesting analysis on the actual US strategy to rob the Shiites from their electoral success and on the nature of the resistance.
Thanks for the link Christiane, that is an excellent article.
Sistani eventually will have to put people in the streets. Deadlock is the American goal. Once again, I will say it;
The only way the Americans leave Iraq is if Sistani puts hundreds of thousands out in the streets. The Americans will be forced to make a choice, either leave or open fire on the crowds.
They will open fire on the crowds.
.
Calling for chaos, when a peaceful transition still looks likely, amounts to murder.
These things are bound to be difficult, sober peace-loving people should counsel peaceful solutions. A massive demonstration can still be peaceful. There is no reason for anyone to fire into the crowd.
With the timetable that is written into the law, there is plenty of time left, and it is perfectly understandable that the US thinks it too early to start pressuring the Kurds.
Given all that, it now seem inevitable that this thing would go down to the wire, and that the long interim after the elections is just a superfluous prologue when various factions will be jockeying for position. However, there is no need for this to be a fatal error.
WarrenW,
Which comments are you reading ? I didn't see any one calling for chaos here.
I don't think there is lot of time. If I remember correctly, the time table foresee that a constitution should be written in about four-six months. That it should be set on referendum in october 2005 and that elections should then take place before the end of the year.
We had a constitution here; we rewamped it recently and it took us about a half dozen years, although our parties weren't diverging on fundamental questions like in Iraq !
It is clear that the Jihadists want to get their hands on the vast hydrocarbon area to the east of the Mediterranean Sea. And it is clear that they must not be allowed to do so. The only power capable of preventing that is the US. However much we would prefer sweeter alternatives, they may not exist.
Open warfare between the oil-bearing regions and the developed world could result in megadeaths.
Christiane:
Perhaps I was over-interpreting, but calling for the massive demonstrations (by Helen) and also expecting massive reactionary violence (by Christiane and Warren) seems to be preparing people to participate in a violent clash.
As a simple example to explain my thoughts: I think that analysis of mass action and violence would encourage Iraqis to bring weapons to a "Peaceful demonstration", making the nightmare come true.
WarrenW:
Your hostile misreadings of what people say-- calling for the massive demonstrations (by Helen): where on earth did I do that? and even if I did, that is NOT the same as calling for violence for chaos?-- and your discourse hoggery are becoming ways too much to bear.
If I should see you doing either of these things again, you're outta here.
Q.v. "Comment guidelines":
It is never courteous to hog the discourse... Try not to comment more than once in every five or six comments in any single discussion.
"It is clear that the Jihadists want to get their hands on the vast hydrocarbon area to the east of the Mediterranean Sea."
>It seems to me Americans what to do the very same thing.
"And it is clear that they must not be allowed to do so."
>Same for US interests.
"The only power capable of preventing that is the US. However much we would prefer sweeter alternatives, they may not exist."
>what a load of nonsense.
"Open warfare between the oil-bearing regions and the developed world could result in megadeaths."
>no joke, and it will be the Americans who start it and cause the greatest number of deaths of innocents. And their underlying goal would be to control the oil and control the region. In short, greed. That makes what they are doing totally evil in my eyes.
That makes what they are doing totally evil in my eyes.
Indeed, America and its allies represent pure unalloyed evil and greed. Imperial warmongering deserves nothing but contempt.