More or less. This is a real bombshell, and further underscores just how wrong Bush was in his dreams of Iraq becoming a beacon of Western-style democracy that would become a model for the Middle East.
Shiite lawmakers decided by a one-vote margin today to retain Ibrahim al-Jaafari as prime minister in Iraq’s next government, after a bitter internal struggle that exposed the growing power of anti-American fundamentalists within the new Iraqi parliament.
As the largest single bloc within the new 275-member parliament, the Shiites have the right to choose a prime minister under Iraq’s constitution and will now begin negotiating in earnest with the leaders of other political groups to fill out Iraq’s first full-term, four-year government.
Mr. Jaafari, a moderate Islamist, has been widely criticized as a weak leader over the past year and was considered a long shot to continue in his post. But he defeated his main rival 64 to 63 in a secret ballot this morning after gaining support from followers of Moktada al-Sadr, the renegade Shiite cleric who is outspoken in his hostility to the United States.
Mr. Sadr’s followers now control the largest bloc of seats — 32 out of 130 — within the Shiite alliance. They decided to vote for Mr. Jaafari after he promised to help implement their political program, said Bahaa al-Aaraji, a sitting member of parliament and a spokesman for the Sadr movement….
A number of Iraqi leaders outside the Shiite alliance expressed surprise and concern about the selection of Mr. Jaafari and the apparent influence exercised by Mr. Sadr’s followers.
Well, I guess that ends that conversation: Iraq is firmly positioned to become an Islamic theocracy, and one managed by a violent anti-American extremist. It doesn’t matter that it was a one-vote margin; the winner takes it all. Anyone remember Najaf and the many lives lost, American and Iraqis? And the man who choreographed the whole thing is now pulling the strings for the nation.
In earlier posts on this topic, some commenters insisted that al-Sistani would hold al-Sadr in check, that the cherubic young cleric would have no significant influence once the government was up and running. Are you still saying that?
For those of you ranting against Moslems in the wake of the cartoon crisis, how do you feel now, knowing that we lost all those thousands of lives in Iraq to put in power a man who sees us as infidels and hostile occupiers, the man who inspired his followers to rise up to fight us, to kill us? And how will those good Americans who sacrificed so much feel when they realize this is what they gave up their limbs and their lives for? (And that last link is a must-read, especially in light of this development.)
Oh, and did I mention Jaafari is notoriously pro-Iranian?
1
By Sojourner
Richard makes some good points, but I don’t see al-Sadr in such a negative light.
He’s no more fundamentalist than many of the mainstream Shia politicians and, despite his anti-Americanism, his movement has won a lot of support from poorer Shias for its work in the slums.
He is, from what I remember, more of an Iraqi nationalist than anything else. Apparently, he does NOT particularly support the pro-Iranian line and, in his attitude to the Sunnis, is a lot less sectarian than many other prominent Shia leaders.
February 13, 2006 @ 2:56 am | Comment
2
By richard
I don’t think I called him a fundamentalist – just a radical. He’s on the other end of the spectrum of the Sunni insurgents and Al Qaeda fanatics. He is, however, decidedly anti-American (again, remember his call to violence against us in Najaf?) and he appears to have definite theocratic tendencies.
February 13, 2006 @ 3:22 am | Comment
3
By Sojourner
“definite theocratic tendencies”, possibly, but he is hardly a charismatic figure and his seemingly genuine attempts to reach out to Sunnis may moderate these tendencies.
As for his anti-Americanism, this is surely part and parcel of his Iraqi nationalism (it depends whether you see the occupation forces as part of the problem or of the solution).
One of his differences with Jaafari in the past was indeed the latter’s close ties with Iran. Conceivably, al-Sadr’s militia would be fighting the Iranian National Guard if they were parolling the streets of Basra rather than the Brits.
And since you Americans gave him a bloody nose on the last two occasions he took you on, he seems to have been charting a more moderate and pragmatic course (e.g., his involvement in the electoral process).
February 13, 2006 @ 3:42 am | Comment
4
By ACB
I think the point that some people are missing is that NOT EVERYBODY WANTS TO BE LIKE AMERICA.
This was a more or less democratic proccess (I have some reservations, but still…) and they chose a leader they thought was best for them but who isn’t best for Ameirca.
Big surprise, a country full of conservative arab muslims picked a government that picked a conservative arab muslim candidate. WHAT DID YOU THINK THAT THEY WOULD DO.
Anybody who believes that a country will automatically pick a secular moderate government, just because it is converted to a democracy overnight, is just plain nuts.
I’d also like to add, that foreigners have no right to complain or critisize, its a domestic matter, as democracy always should be.
Just because it doesn’t go the way that you want it to go, doens’t mean that its wrong.
February 13, 2006 @ 4:49 am | Comment
5
By richard
Sojourner, I think he’s definitely charismatic, in a nasty kind of way. I watched footage of his leading angry followers through the slums last year, and can’t deny his charisma (which is no compliment).
February 13, 2006 @ 6:08 am | Comment
6
By Thomas
I’m with ACB on this one. If it was a fair election, there should be no reason to complain.
February 13, 2006 @ 6:53 am | Comment
7
By nykrindc
You make too much of Sadr’s power at this point in time. No doubt he is grooming himself for a leadership rule in Iraq, but he has not reached that post yet, otherwise he would be the Prime Minister now not Jafaari. In any event, while the Shiites hold a majority of the seats in Parliament, they will now have to contend with the sunnis, kurds and secularists who together make up about 50% of the representatives, meaning that if the movement wants to pass its “agenda” it will need to get at least some measure of support from the other camps.
Regarding your argument about Bush’s push for democracy being wrong, well pushing for democracy in the region was never about getting the people we wanted into power (otherwise we would have just imposed a new dictator on the people after toppling Hussein). It was rather, more about breaking that cycle, about giving the region a third way. Will Islamists come to power in these countries in the short term? Yes, but that would have happened anyway once democracy reached the Muslim world, because these groups are the best organized in the region since they use the mosque to garner and drum up support. The rise of “moderates” will come about slowly, it won’t happen overnight, and will only happen once Islamists have to deal with the problems affecting their societies from sewage to garbage collection, to education and healthcare. Once they are in charge of providing all these services to their people, who elected them based on their promises that they would, they will have to be pragmatic in their approach and find a way to provide these services, sometimes at the expense of their ideology.
That said, I don’t like the manner in which this administration has pursued the goals that we all agree need to be pursued, but if they got one thing right, it is the promotion of democracy.
February 13, 2006 @ 9:07 am | Comment
8
By filthy stinking no.9
The key to democracy is that it means you have to accept the election result, no matter if you like it or not. Everyone always thinks that democracy is about voting in the people you support … but if that’s the level of understanding of the process, then it’s doomed from the start. The true key to a successful democratic society is that you accept that if the other guy wins, he is still the legitimate leader, and that in due course you will get your turn to try to replace him when the next election is due. In other words, it’s the acceptance of defeat, not the victory in an election, that is what democracy is all about. Perhaps this is a lesson that people in countries outside the Middle East could also learn … and there’s one country in particular that I’m thinking of.
(Of course, there’s a footnote: if the party who wins an election subsequently breaks the rules and tries to hold onto power … then you’re morally obligated to become a revolutionary, and overthrow that government. Now … for all the talk in a certain country about how the government cheated, and how it isn’t the legitimate government … there’s been no revolutionary activity. To me, that says that either the people who say those words lack the courage of their own convictions, they don’t believe what they’re actually saying, they’re cowards, or … they’re just full of it.)
February 13, 2006 @ 12:57 pm | Comment
9
By richard
Of course that’s always the risk of democracy. Just look back, however, to the original Bush promise of what the costly invasion would bring us. If he had urged us to fight and die to bring al-Sadr to power I doubt many would have rallied. No, his extravagant promise was that Iraq’s freedom would be so compelling, so irresistible it would serve as an inspiration to citizens in surrounding countries living under tyrannical theocracies. It would move them to throw off the shackles of tyranny and to reject terrorism. It’ is completely fair, I believe, to say that what we were promised and what we got are two painfully different things.
February 13, 2006 @ 4:08 pm | Comment
10
By Michael Turton
*********
Now … for all the talk in a certain country about how the government cheated, and how it isn’t the legitimate government … there’s been no revolutionary activity. To me, that says that either the people who say those words lack the courage of their own convictions, they don’t believe what they’re actually saying, they’re cowards, or … they’re just full of it.)
********
…or your view of what constitutes a revolution is so impoverished that you don’t recognize one when it is happening right in front of you.
Michael
February 13, 2006 @ 4:29 pm | Comment
11
By richard
Thanks Michael.
February 13, 2006 @ 4:37 pm | Comment
12
By nykrindc
his extravagant promise was that Iraq’s freedom would be so compelling, so irresistible it would serve as an inspiration to citizens in surrounding countries living under tyrannical theocracies.
Yes, but democracy takes time. The promise is that once people see Iraqis vote and elect their own leaders, it would make others in the region question why they couldn’t do the same. It is also a promise that the process would seek to involve and integrate those elements that now where a prime source of recruits for al Qaeda, mainly Islamists and Salafists. In Palestine Hamas has come to power, given the responsibility by the Palestinian people to improve their lot, in Lebanon, Hezbollah has been brought into the government, in Iraq Sadr, the Sunni insurgents who seemed to have the most to loose from a democratic Iraq, and yet they’ve chosen to become part of the system and tailor their rhetoric to gain political power. That is what democracy is, once people chose to have it, we cannot tell them whom to choose.
I don’t like defending the adminstration because I think they’ve done so many foolish things, but the promotion of democracy in the region is something which must be above partisan politics and above ideological differences here at home. If 9/11 demonstrated anything was that the status quo in the Muslim world was not working and needed to change. The administration, Thomas Barnett and many others recognized this. They also recognized that change was coming to the region no matter what we did, hence we needed to become a revolutionary power if we were going to help direct the direction of that change, to deny al Qaeda and groups like it, the victory they have sought for so long. Democracy, and integration to the global economy are tools in this endeavor, they are but a means to the future worth creating. It will take time, and it is up to the people in the region to determine the pace of that change, we got the ball rolling (the big bang, if you will) and now we must tailor our strategy to ensure that the ripple effect continues to get us what in the long term we want.
February 13, 2006 @ 9:44 pm | Comment
13
By richard
Sounds good in theory, but if Iraq is mired in a civil war and/or ruled by an Iranian-style theocracy which ends up stifling rather than promoting freedom (have you heard about the reversal of progress for womens rights?) then it will all have been in vain. So far, I have seen nothing to justify our dirty war, no success of any kind, but instead one terrible setback after another, including word of al-Sadr’s increased power. We’ve been told to wait and see and to be patient for three years now. I see no cause for optimism, none whatsoever, especially in light of the other “democracies” in the regions – Egypt, Lebanon and Palestine, all of which voted in extremists with links to terrorism.
February 13, 2006 @ 9:59 pm | Comment
14
By Tequila
I have yet to hear why the Middle East will be so eager to adapt democracy given an Iraqi Shia example if they have been so reluctant to do so given an Israeli Jewish and a Sunni Turkish example.
It is a myth to say that Arabs and Muslims have no experience with democracy. The Palestinians voted in Yasir Arafat and now Hamas. The Algerians voted in the FIS. The Lebanese have had repeated elections in their weird, jury-rigged system under no harsher occupation than the Americans have implanted in Iraq. The Iranian elections were just as free and fair as the Iraqi ones (and yes, neither met a reasonable standard for either). So how does Iraq somehow generate regional democracy?
February 14, 2006 @ 5:06 am | Comment
15
By nykrindc
Sounds good in theory, but if Iraq is mired in a civil war and/or ruled by an Iranian-style theocracy which ends up stifling rather than promoting freedom (have you heard about the reversal of progress for womens rights?) then it will all have been in vain.
Yes, women’s rights have suffered, but the rights given to them were an imposed on the population by a dictator who enforced his edicts with overwhelming force. It is only natural that given his dissapearance from the scene, muslims would seek to bring their religion back to the fore. See, that’s been part of the problem in the middle east, either dictators who imposed secularism with an Iron hand, or monarchies that stifled all opposition except religious extremism. Iraqis will have to solve this problem on their own, they have to renegotiate their social contract, that might take a civil war. The fact of the matter remains that change was coming to the region following 9/11, either from us or from al Qaeda, at least now we have a dog in the fight. People might disagree about the way we went in, but we are there now and must find a way to ensure that the sacrifices made so far were not made in vain. One good thing already came out of it, Saddam is no longer in control, now we need to find a way to use that to our advantage to “drain” the swamp and give Iraqis a future worth living, and the muslim world a future worth creating.
February 14, 2006 @ 2:05 pm | Comment
16
By Bond investor
Richard and other tPD readers, check out an excellent article at the TCSDaily blog on this very issue.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/Article.aspx?id=021506A
While his tone is slightly alarmist, the author’s parallels between:
1. al-Sadr, weak PM Jaafari and the two failed bloody anti-American uprisings Sadr mastermineded in 2004 and
2. Hitler, weak head of Weimar govt von Hindenburg and the failed 1923 Munich Beer Hall Putsch
are frightening. I can only hope that the system of Proportional Representation that’s in the Iraqi governmental structure (i.e., Kurds and Sunnis have a voice) will prevent further power grabs by Sadr.
February 16, 2006 @ 6:21 am | Comment
17
By Bond investor
The TCSDaily.com article I referenced above adequately rebuts nykrindc’s question: “If Sadr were truly in power, why is Jaafari still Prime Minister?” Because Sadr can’t be head of a government he repudiates as poisoned by American intervention. But, like Hitler, he can swallow some of his political pride and work inside to achieve his goal of control of Iraq.
February 16, 2006 @ 6:25 am | Comment