Category: Middle East

The major contenders for the position of Iraq’s top government spot have been identified. Let the political games begin.

Iraq’s interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi, sought to widen his support base yesterday in an attempt to keep his job and lead the next government.

Mr Allawi is one of two men in the frame for the post, the other being the Islamic Shiite politician Ibrahim al-Jaafari.

Mr Jaafari is the clear front-runner, having won the backing on Tuesday of Iraq’s most powerful political alliance. But Mr Allawi, a secular Shiite who has ruled the country for eight months, said yesterday that he had pulled together support from outside his own political list.

He did not specify who his new backers were, saying only that they were “brothers from smaller lists” than his own, who won a handful of seats in last month’s election.

[…]

At stake is the chance to spearhead Iraq’s first democratically elected government in more than 50 years.

The Shiite alliance backing Mr Jaafari won 48 per cent of the vote in the election, giving it 140 seats and a slim overall majority in the new 275-seat parliament.

But it does not have the two-thirds majority it needs to secure Mr Jaafari’s appointment, and will have to cut deals with other parties and coalitions to get its way.

It could appeal to the Kurds, who finished second in the election and will have 75 seats. However, the Kurds might back Mr Allawi, whose list won 14 per cent and will have 40 seats.

Iraq’s deputy president, Rowsch Shways, a prominent Kurd, said yesterday that Mr Jaafari was “a man I can work with”, but it was too soon to say he would get the job.

There is still the possibility that the Shiite alliance, which has a religious core but counts secular Shiites, Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen among its members, will break up.

It will certainly be interesting watching this unfold. The Shiite alliance is in the catbird’s seat but, even if it remains completely unified, would still need help from either the Kurds or Allawi. No other party can get the prime minister’s position without defections from the Shiite group. Apparently, the Kurds are wanting to deal in exchange for the presidency position so they have to be the target of major negotiations, as their votes alone could put the Shiite alliance over the top.

There are three important things to note in this whole matter. First, it was obviously extremely wise to put in the two-thirds majority requirement, practically guaranteeing cooperation to some extent or other. Second, the Sunnis’ poor election turnout has left them on the sidelines for now, certainly fodder for what the army would call an After Action Review. Third and perhaps most important, I find it wonderful to see the current leader of Iraq wheeling and dealing with rivals in an attempt to maintain power — such a refreshing change from just killing the opposition. Hopefully, the rest of the Arab Middle East will take note of the change in the wind.

When the Iraqi Sunnis threatened to boycott the January elections, I supported following through with the voting as planned and predicted that it would “only be a hard-learned lesson in democracy” if the Sunnis chose to shortchange themselves in the balloting. Shortly after the momentous elections, a secular Sunni leader voiced the accuracy of my prediction, talking of second thoughts among Sunni parties.

Now, weeks later, the Pentagon supports the truth of my statement.

Many Iraqis who had opposed the U.S.-led transition to democracy have begun reconsidering their position in light of the Jan. 30 elections, a Pentagon spokesman said Thursday.

Larry Di Rita, chief spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, told reporters he knew of no leaders of the insurgency who have offered to end their opposition. He asserted that the elections have widened the circle of Iraqis who want to participate in the political process.

“The Iraqi people have demonstrated a clear sense of hope for the future, and that sense of hope is increasingly out of step with many of the people who were either on the fence or lending tacit support to the insurgency, so I would imagine a lot of those people are coming forward,” he said.

Don’t let people lie to you — sometimes, saying “I told you so” can be sweet.

The spokesman said the U.S. military facilitates contact between the interim Iraqi government and representatives of opposition or insurgent groups, but he said the military is not negotiating with any groups. Most of this work is being done by the U.S. Embassy and the Iraqi government, he said.

“I think the people who are involved in this know that the Iraqi transitional government has itself been doing its own analysis of who (among the insurgents) might be willing to end the fight and who is worth having those kinds of discussions with,” he added. “But it’s not our place to comment on that.”

Discussions with some of the insurgents? Fine, I have no problem with that. Some may actually see themselves as the patriots for their Iraqi homeland that some on the American left have tried to paint all the terrorists in Iraq as being. These are the ones that can be dealt with via negotiations, having witnessed their nation embracing democracy and working to form their own government.

Now, as for the radical Islamists and foreign terrorists, no deals. Only defeat or death. And how is that progressing?

Brig. Gen. David Rodriguez, a deputy director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said there has been a small decline in insurgent attacks since the elections. He added that it may be too soon to draw any conclusions about the strength or size of the insurgency.

Di Rita declined to say whether it appears the insurgency is losing strength.

“The insurgency is what it is,” he said. “A large number of insurgents are being killed and captured. They are still capable of doing great harm. They’re killing a lot of innocent civilians inside of Iraq,” and as a result Iraq is a “country that has thrown itself back into the dark ages.”

And that, y’all, is a realistic assessment — a hell of a lot of progress, but a hell of a long way to go for the Iraqi people, their government and our fine troops.

It was said Iraqi elections couldn’t happen. It was said they should be postponed. I blogged that they could be done and should be done without delay.

The Iraqis voted. It came to pass, and approximately 8.56 million Iraqis dipped their finger into the inkwell.

Now the preliminary results have been announced, pending any challenges.

Iraqi leaders began looking ahead to forming a National Assembly and filling top posts after uncertified election results were released Sunday.

The Shiite-backed United Iraqi Alliance won a plurality of votes in the January 30 elections but fell short of an outright majority, the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq said.

The combined Kurdish parties, meanwhile, will nominate Jalal Talabani to be president of Iraq, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh told CNN on Sunday.

Talabani, leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, was a member of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, the predecessor to the interim government that took over June 28, 2004.

Saleh, a member of the Kurdish alliance, said he was “proud” of the Kurdish participation in the election.

“This has been a long, arduous journey for us, to be accepted in the capital of Iraq and as national players,” he said.

The Kurds, who make up about 20 percent of Iraq, were brutally repressed under former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Saleh said it was imperative that the new government include all of Iraq’s peoples, however.

“We cannot afford another era of conflict and turbulence,” he said.

Luckily, the coalition-led interim government had the wisdom to put in some assurances against the dominance of one party — decisions going forward for the assembly elected are subject to requirements of a super-majority that one party could not have realistically hoped to attain. Negotiation and accommodation have been forced into play in Iraq.

Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, another Kurdish official, said a “marathon of negotiations” comes next. Iraqi national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie, a member of the UIA, told CNN that the election was “like a national wedding.”

“We are heading towards formation of a national reconciliation government,” he said. “We are going to spare no time in including all communities — Sunnis, Shia, Arab and Kurds and Turkoman and Kurdo-Assyrians, Assyrians.

“This is going to be one of the most inclusive and certainly the most representative government in the history of Iraq,” he said.

[…]

Interim Finance Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi, a UIA member considered the favorite for prime minister, welcomed the announcement of Talabani’s presidential nomination.

“Why not?” Mahdi said. “I am very encouraged really to see such names.”

And what of the Sunnis? Bitter after their long run in power under Saddam, the Sunnis threatened boycotts based on whether Fallujah was assaulted or the security against the terrorists was not resolved. Any lessons learned about democracy?

Adnan Pachachi, a secular Sunni leader, told CNN he was “disappointed” that his party mustered only about 0.1 percent of the vote nationwide.

But he called the elections “a good thing” and said he doesn’t question their legitimacy.

[…]

There are concerns the Sunni Arab population — about 20 percent of Iraq’s estimated 25 million people — will look upon the results as illegitimate. Two influential Sunni groups, the Association of Muslim Scholars and Iraqi Islamic Party, did not participate in the elections.

But Pachachi said he was committed to ensuring that Sunnis are represented in the writing of the constitution.

“I have a feeling that many of the Sunni parties that boycotted the elections are having second thoughts now,” he said.

Trust me, we’ve rounded a major bend in Iraq, but it ain’t over yet. The newly-elected Iraqi National Assembly will be targeted by the terrorist scum in hopes of depriving the people of their wishes. If the people see the terrorists’ attacks as such, the terrorists are screwed.

Meanwhile, we must continue to provide security and promote the capabilities of the forces available to the resultant Iraqi government.

Each step forward is another brick in the shining city on the Arab hill that can help us in our fight against the Islamist bastards, another step in building an alternative to the radicalism spawned by the failures of the Arab governments and the radical aspects of Islamic societies. Each voice against our progress is a scream against the future safety of our children on our own shores.

It’s difficult to tell whether this is meant to smooth over American-Iranian relations or just serve as a little diplomatic trash talk.

Iran and the United States have a common enemy in the al-Qaida terrorist network and shared interests in Iraq, former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said in an interview published Monday.

Rafsanjani, one of Iran’s most powerful leaders, said in the interview with USA Today in Tehran on Sunday that Iraq’s Jan 30 national elections went “well” and that al-Qaida terrorists “are our enemies, too. You are aware of what al-Qaida has done to our fellow Shiites in Iraq.”

He characterized as “nonsense” statements by U.S. President George W Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Iran’s “cleric-run government” and human rights record. “We say the United States wouldn’t dare to attack us, and they have tested it once (the failed hostage rescue in 1980),” he added.

“The United States is a big country, but unfortunately it seems it has the brain of a little bird not befitting the greatness of the country,” Rafsanjani said.

I especially enjoy the bluster about the abortion that was the Operation Eagle Claw rescue attempt. I assure you that Rafsanjani understands that today’s American military is not the charlie foxtrot of the post-Viet Nam hangover.