B... whoever the US military says wins.

C... whoever the US military says wins.

D... all of the above.

Mohammed Hussein : Najaf : 1533 GMT

There have been several rumours about the participation of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. It is believed he did not vote because he does not currently have Iraqi nationality.

We have contacted his office a short while ago and they confirmed this. But they said Mr Sistani stressed the need for people to take part in the elections.

I hope the Iraqis make the right decision.

Hail to the Thief!

When I was in Iraq I knew that the shiites were going to end up in power. My feeling was and still is that we should curry favor with them by just giving it to them. Until the Iraqis and Muslims in general try Islamic theocracy, they are going to want to try it. Its kinda like Republicans and the welfare state; until they get rid of it they are going to want to get rid of it. Funny thing is, once you get what you want, you won't want it anymore.

That's the beauty of it. A fool who persists in his folly will become wise.

First of all, Ali al-Sistani is NO fundamentalist.  He is quite the moderate, and has striven to reach out to Sunnis and Kurds - unlike the insurgents, who wish to begin a civil war to use genocide to wipe out their opponents - he wants to build a future Iraq free of the racism and hate espoused by al-Zarqawi's ilk.

Iraq today had a choice of over a hundred parties - far from the unrealistic and false presentation that this blog imparts.  A diverse slate of candidates will likely be chosen, meaning that any government will be moderate and reach out to all sectors of Iraqi society.

Today, instead of giving into fear, millions of Iraqis went to the polls to build their country's future.  On National Public Radio, one reporter talked about how many Iraqis had told her that, having voted, "the terrorists can kill us now that we've done our duty."

If that kind of bravery isn't to be commended, I don't know what is.

Yes, todays election is major step towards Kurdish separatism and ultimate regional chaos (with huge international repercussions) involving Turkey (our NATO ally) Syria and Iran, all with substantial Kurdish populations.

But please let's not wave red in front of the Freepers, Fauxers and Bushites and call Saddam a "secular dictator state of affairs".  That allows them to ignore the reality you point out and scream about the celebration of democracy over brutal tyranny.

For myself, one of the big problems is sustainability. The other problem stability. You see, I am a true conservative. i think the world we fashioned after WWII is a good one and it doesn't need to be messed with. What is that world? It is a world of hope. If you are poor, you won't be ground into dust by poverty and war. What you have to do is work and obey the law. If you do, things will get better. For the most part they have.

Now there are two problems, overpopulation and overconsumption. In theory one could have a market mechanism to correct those problems, ie higher prices. But whenever that happens, the common folk get restless because it means a few things:

1. Can't pop out children you can't pay for
   
2. Cannot assuage your spiritual fears with consumption
   
3. Generally have to live a very limited life in the real world and supplant it with phantasmagoria.

Treat the people like dumb oxen and they will vote that way. Treat them like enlightened beings and the MAY vote that way.

Iraq is 97% Muslim, so any faction(s) in power would define it as an officially Muslim country, and may incorporate elements of Sharia (Islamic religious law) into the legal code.  As long as they don't try to enforce Shiite Muslim practices over conflicting Sunni practices, the existence of religious law may be OK with all of them.

That wouldn't necessarily make it a true theocracy. Will the new Iraqi government become a dictatorship run by the mullahs? Or will it be run by elected lay people who support Muslim values?  Al Sistani might be satisfied with the latter.

Additionally, a government that promotes one religion is not necessarily "fundamentalist." It might support a more moderate, tolerant version.  

So,

1. It remains to be seen how much -- and what interpretation -- of Sharia makes it into the new constitution and laws.  That's one issue.

2. It also remains to be seen what rights political minorities and dissidents of any religious stripe will have.  That's the second issue.

3. It's also unclear whether any government will be able to enforce anything, or whether Iraq will have ongoing civil war and chaos.

But it is unlikely that Sistani's slate will win a majority in the parliamentary elections, and that his slate will form a coalition with some of the smaller "religious" parties, resulting in a more "secular" government (and Constitution) than would occur if Sistani's group had majority control.

The Sunni problem is not really that much of a problem at all.  One suspects that when the time is appropriate, the Shiite militias will be able to shut down the Ba'athist insurgency, and signal to al-Zarqawi that his battle had better not be with the Shiite government of Iraq (but don't expect a crackdown by the Shiites against Al Qaeda in Iraq if they concentrate their attacks on the US.)  

The real problem is going to be dealing with the Kurds.  The Kurds will probably be given a deal whereby they have a great deal of political autonomy, but very little economic autonomy---and any attempts by Iraq Kurds to forment problems in Turkey or Iran will be dealt with quite harshly.

Basically, if I was Sistani, I'd sent a message to Negroponte, saying

Here are the conditions for peace with the occupation forces:

1. complete forgiveness of all debts incurred by Saddam Hussein to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait
   
2. $100,000,000,000 in reparations from the USA for the destruction it has wrought in Iraq
   
3. a complete withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq by the first day of Ramadan in 2005 (Oct. 5)