US hopes of secular Iraqi state fade away

[allemand]

By Paul McGeough Chief Herald Correspondent in Baghdad

CONSERVATIVE religious parties have surged to a runaway lead in the counting of votes to appoint a government to run Iraq for the next four years.

With more than 60 per cent of votes tallied, Washington's hopes that the former prime minister Iyad Allawi might pull enough support to build a secular administration have faded dramatically.

Instead, a religious alliance is in the box seat. These parties are already imposing a strict religious code on daily life across swathes of the country and are closely aligned with neighbouring Iran, one of George Bush's "axis of evil" enemies.

The religious Shiites and the Kurdish parties have maintained their iron grip on the south and north respectively, but with 89 per cent of votes counted in the Baghdad melting pot, both Dr Allawi and his arch rival and one-time Pentagon darling, Ahmed Chalabi, face marginalisation.

More:
http://smh.com.au/news/world/us-hopes-of-secular-iraqi-state-fade-away/2005/12/20/1135032020005.html

Juan Cole comments:

Al-Zaman is reporting early returns for Baghdad. The United Iraqi Alliance is reputed to have 58 percent there, with the Iraqi Concord Front (Sunni) getting 19 percent. Allawi brings up the rear with 14 percent, a disastrous performance given that his list seems to have done nothing anywhere else. The list will likely see its strength in parliament halved.

These results suggest a very strong position for the United Iraqi Alliance. There were 69 seats at issue in Baghdad province, the largest single lot. If the UIA got 40 of them, that is a huge victory. Add those 40 to the likely 70 or so the UIA got in the solidly Shiite provinces, and you have 110. Another 8 in Babil and it is 118. A similar number in Diyala and you'd have 126. Then they may get some of the reserved seats when the reapportionment is done. They will be very close to having the 138 it needs to form a government. They can certainly pick up a few small allies and do it, perhaps without needing either the Sunnis or the Kurds (though they will need an initial coalition to gain the 2/3s needed to elect a president to appoint the prime minister).

In other words, the Shiite fundamentalist parties have won again. The secularists lost badly. Allawi and Chalabi are out of the game. The question is only whether the Shiites align with the Sunnis or the Kurds, or both.
http://www.juancole.com/2005/12/fundamentalist-shiites-will-dominate.html

Results for Eight Provinces, including Baghdad

Baghdad Province:
-UIA: 1,403,901
-Consensus: 403,900
-Allawi: 327,154
-Risaliyoun: 4,410
-Al-Mutlag: 36,670
-Kurdish: 25,308
-Alusi: 13,185

Duhok Province:
-Kurdish: 344,717
-Islamic Kurdish: 28,401
-Rafidayn Christian: 4,095
-Allawi: 2,327
-Masoud Brifkani (Independent): 1,341
-Yezidi: 495

Arbil Province:
-Kurdish: 575,890
-Islamic Kurdish: 19,515
-Allawi: 2,420
-Action Party: 1,720
-Rafidayn: 1,599
-Turkuman: 1,144

Suleimaniya Province:
-Kurdish: 671,814
-Islamic Kurdish: 83,208
-Other Islamic Kurdish: 10,330
-Allawi: 1,806
-The Solution Party (PKK affiliate): 1,140

Babil Province:
-UIA: 417,070
-Allawi: 84,388
-Consensus: 31,455
-Risaliyoun: 8,999
-Al-Mutlag: 2,978
-Islamic Loyalty party: 2,670

Karbala Province:
-UIA: 209,790
-Allawi: 35,452
-Risaliyoun: 8,059
-Islamic Loyalty party: 3,413
-Islamic Coalition: 2,662
-The Reformers: 1,437

Najaf Province:
-UIA: 323,820
-Allawi: 28,755
-Risliyoun: 14,805
-Al-Zurfi: 3,044
-Al-Dabagh: 2,398
-Iraq Future: 1,843

Misan Province:
-UIA: 275,128
-Allawi: 13,739
-Risaliyoun: 10,699
-Islamic Movement: 2,707
-Islamic Loyalty party: 2,054
-Reform Coalition: 1,490

Basra Province:
-UIA: 612,206
-Allawi: 87,134
-Consensus: 36,997
-Uprising Movement: 10,476
-Iraqi National Congress: 2,723

(...)

UIA: 130 (likely to increase slightly, includes satellite Sadrist lists)
Consensus: 45 (likely to increase slightly)
Kurdish: 55
Allawi: 20 (likely to decrease slightly)
Mutlag: 15 (likely to decrease slightly)

http://talismangate.blogspot.com/2005/12/results-for-eight-provinces-including.html

[rodeodance]

1. Instead, a religious alliance is in the box seat.---a fundamentalist

With more than 60 per cent of votes tallied, Washington's hopes that the former prime minister Iyad Allawi might pull enough support to build a secular administration have faded dramatically.

Instead, a religious alliance is in the box seat. These parties are already imposing a strict religious code on daily life across swathes of the country and are closely aligned with neighbouring Iran, one of George Bush's "axis of evil" enemies.......

[rodeodance]

2. put this is the "progress" column.

sarcasm alert.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. Atta boy, Chimp!

[Spinzonner]

4. But then we knew this, as would anyone who read Iraqi history

but then Shrub doesn't read. Or even listen to what's being read to him - unless it's what he wants to hear.

Too bad someone couldn't make it into a picture story with a goat.

[PurityOfEssence]

14. Amazing, huh?

How many people on this board alone predicted such a thing? Hell, how many on this board predicted the civil strife, fragmentization and the whole picture?

Yeah, there are a lot of sharp people on this board, but there are a lot who aren't experts who arrived at the same conclusion through little more than common sense.

These guys have so thoroughly bungled this misadventure that it's breathtaking, yet they still seem to get plenty of people to mindlessly march on with them.

What a mess. What a bunch of idiots.

[obxhead]

46. isn't fundamentalism fun?

[Yavin4]

16. Bush Learns from Sock Puppets

If you explain complex information using sock puppet theater, then he'd get it.

[SOS]

23. Bush didn't even know what a "Sunni" was in 2003...

Peter Galbraith - former U.S. diplomat: In January 2003 the President invited three members of the Iraqi opposition to join him to watch the Super Bowl. In the course of the conversation the Iraqis realized that the President was not aware that there was a difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. He looked at them and said, "You mean...they're not, you know, there, there's this difference. What is it about?"

[Fovea]

33. Read History?

That's for the reality based community.

[RazzleDazzle]

41. It didn't even take reading history -- there were PLENTY of

"naysayers" and "doomsayers" before the war who explained quite succinctly in a column here, a column there, that this would be the likely outcome. It was as simple as this: this is the numbers of this faction, this is the numbers of that faction, this is the majority of this faction (shi'ites). You do the math: put in a "democracy" and in a very short time, you'll have a fundamentalist religious regime.

Bingo! Sooner than might have been expected by the optimistic among us, here we are.

[rocktivity]

61. DING DING DING! RazzleDazzle, you're our grand prize winner!

...there were PLENTY of "naysayers" and "doomsayers"...who explained quite succinctly...that this would be the likely outcome.

During the runup to the invasion, were plenty of DU-ers who figured it out quite succinctly, too!

:headbang:
rocknation

[KitchenWitch]

5. The irony is delicious

They want a Christian theocracy here, but want a secular state there?

Fucking amazing.

[MadisonProgressive]

6. Game, set, and match!

[tanyev]

7. Mission Accomplished. WTG, George.

:sarcasm:

[enigma000]

8. but...but...but...the US approved the candidates n/t

[hatrack]

9. With more than 60% of the Iraqi population Shiite . . .

Was there ever any other likely outcome?

Not bloody likely.

[catmandu57]

10. You did it georgie*

The stage has been set for a very interesting year, pray tell when these religious fundies come and say GET OUT NOW what in the fuck are you going to do then?

[Jim__]

11. Is anyone surprised by this? - n/t

[enigma000]

13. Well, a little

I figured the US would arrange for a secular puppet government. Instead the UIA seems to have been re-elected.

[ixion]

12. I guess those six-figure analysts got it wrong

I could have told them that the chances of a secular Iraqi government were slim to none. :eyes:

Have these people ever opened a history book?

[Javaman]

15. doin' a heck of a job there, georgie*...

so let's see, go to war with a secular gov't run by a dictator, only to be replaced by a non-secular gov't run by a cleric. wow, if moron* got ordained, we would have the same thing here...

heck of a job, heck of a job...

I weep for our future.

colossal dimwitted racist failure*.

[Massachusetts]

17. No Shit Sherlock!

"In fact the continuation of an occupation without limits may very well be a reason why the Allawi and Sunni lists that have very different relations to the Americans could not act together, the assumption here for a positive scenario, even if they had a good enough electoral result (and the electoral results were not falsified, the Sunni elected representatives were not debaathified and so on.) The American occupiers are thus in a contradictory position. It is in their interest to produce a Sunni –Allawi combination capable of forcing the creation of a National Unity Government. But by their refusal to consider the dismantling of the occupation, they may be the main reason why such a combination will not emerge. But in that case, the insurrection will not be split, and Iran will get the prize."

Andrew Arato
New York
December 16, 2005"

http://www.juancole.com/

[grytpype]

18. Congratulations Duhbya, you handed Iraq over to Iran.

You are the dumbest mfr on the planet.

[EVDebs]

37. Patrick Lang of the DIA said Iranian intell's gaming of * was 'good work'

And he had great respect for that good work. Chalabi as OSP/PNAC's boy turns out to be the biggest act of treason, and loss of US military casualties, and the media doesn't make a peep.

Can you believe it ? There shouldn't even be the need for investigations or impeachment; once it becomes public knowledge you'd think Bush would do what LBJ did and Nixon did, realize the truth and resign. Why put the national interest behind that of your own, right ? You can't cover this up much longer and you sure can't put any more lipstick on this pig, as Bill Clinton would have said.

[stickdog]

19. Iraq will be a shining example of Middle East Theocracy! (nt)

[killbotfactory]

20. Is Bush an Iranian agent sent to destroy America?

I know they were close with Bush I during Iran Contra, and the hostage crisis...

Over 30,000 lives lost...
Nearly half a trillion dollars, spent...
And we get this as a result?

[bpilgrim]

21. huRah! the war is OVER, Iran WON (n/t)

peace

[Hyernel]

22. The hope of a secular American state are fading too.

Too bad. That bridge to the 21st century looked really nice. But I can hardly see it now.

[AnneD]

24. I just can't believe they were that stupid...

arrogant yes, stupid no.:evilgrin:

[tenshi816]

25. So, is it "mission accomplished"?

Is "freedom on the march" yet? What about "seeds of freedom" being planted?

[KansDem]

26. Wait a minute...WAIT a minute...this could all change...!!!

With more than 60 per cent of votes tallied

Only 60 per cent? This could all change in the "early morning hours." (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). Some people say that those Iraqis who usually vote for pro-US puppet government candidates, do so later in the day...

[tabasco]

27. A trillion dollars of our money and how many thousands of lives lost,

to set up a theocracy in Iraq.

But hey! A lot of corporations are making a lot of money, so it's all good, right??

The truly frightening part of all this is that 37% of the American People still support this regime of robber barons.

[silvermachine]

28. What did they expect?

This is no surprise to anyone. But Dubya does need his enemies to justify more profiteering and imperialism.

[Wordie]

29. Not only that, but by strengthening the fundamentalist mullahs hand, we've

also managed to undermine those more liberal Iranians hoping for a more secular government there, too. Good job!

All those lives lost, and all the money that could have been used for productive things, to make the lives of US citizens better - it's shameful. This is the most gigantic mistake in our history. Yet to listen to all the Bush minions talking about this on TV, it's a great success! Jeez.

[daleo]

30. I wonder how U.S. propaganda will handle this?

Will we hear talk of an election "do-over", or will we suddenly be told a theocracy isn't so bad after all?

[gratuitous]

31. A theocracy isn't so bad, or . . .

They'll say that this was the outcome they were hoping for all along. Either way, it means that we sent tens of thousands of troops to Iraq, where more than 2,000 have died, several thousand more have been wounded, and uncounted thousands of Iraqis have been killed and maimed, all so that we could establish Saruman's tower at Orthanc opposite Sauron's at Barad Dur.

Good taste forbids me from mentioning the half a trillion dollars spent out of the Treasury in the same paragraph with all the dead and wounded, but let's not forget that.

[daleo]

32. Talk about your law of unintended consequences...

Working through neo-con stupidity, greed, hubris and criminality.

[Disturbed]

35. The Bush Admin. is only concerned with the following.

"The terrorists want to control the oil. Our way of life will be at risk". George W. Bush (Nov. 2005)

[SoCalDem]

39. Well.. "our way of life" has been lived on borrowed time for a long time

If "our way of life" can only be achieved by making deals with the "devil" and stealing other people's
resources, we need to be doing things differently,, and the sooner the better..

Too bad too, because when CARTER was president, he set the wheels in motion..the public was actually paying attention after the gas crisis and the hostage-takings..and then Uncle Ronnie came along and undid everything..he borrowed money to "buy us candy"..

Had we stayed on course, we would be virtually energy independent by now..and we would be driving fuel efficient cars too..

[Eugene]

45. Stephen Hadley says, "No surprise."

Political devision along sectarian lines is a stage in Iraq's political evolution.
Let the Iraqis sort this out and let's move on to Iran.

AP: Bush Adviser Says Iraq Voting No Surprise

[Danmel]

34. As the kids would say "DUH"

Great job- we removed a secular dictator and will replace him with a theocratic dictator likely to forge close ties with the real terrorists, the Iranians. Great work, Georgie you colossal fuck up.

[Miss Chybil]

36. If this is how the majority of Iraqi people want to live, this is how they

should live. I feel bad for the minority, though. Very sad, but, you can't impose "democracy" on a people, they have to want it and build it themselves. So, not only have we failed in producing a "democratic" government on the Iraqis, we have in the process, lost part of our own.

[mom cat]

38. There was a secular govt in Iraq before we invaded. If Bush had really

wanted a secular govt, he would not have invaded.

[pinkpops]

40. damn paper ballots

[donkeyotay]

42. I thought Chalabi was part of the UIA

Has he really been cut out? That would be good news. I don't care if Satan runs Iraq, (Calling Cheney. Future employment op.) just so long as Chalabi doesn't not continue to profit from what he's done to America.

[arewenotdemo]

43. Isla...er, Freedom is on the March!

[angryxyouth]

44. So do we continue to build an Iraqi Military

That will be controlled by fundamentalists with ties to EVIL IRAN? We should at least sell them some new WMDs, so that when we attack them next time we will know that they have them.:banghead:

[Solly Mack]

47. That headline is laughable

One -it's old news (as the Constitution is rooted in Islamic law) - so it's a no -brainer that Iraq won't be secular

Two - IF the Bush Regime "hoped" for something else, then why the constantly repeated BS talking point of "democracy will mean different things to different people"

Three - Wasn't it set up so as to make this possible anyway? From how the vote would be counted to how the seats would be apportioned?


So what hopes have faded away?

[allemand]

48. They had hoped that Allawi would win. They put a lot of money into his

campaign, bought air time for his ads, etc. In the end, he only got 8%. Their other hope, Ahmed Chalabi, who some say as contender for the post of prime minister got a staggering 0.36% in Baghdad alone.

In the words of Juan Cole, this shows that "the neocons still just can't understand anything about contemporary Iraq".

[Solly Mack]

49. they hoped against the obvious

and that makes them idiots - since everything about Iraq since the invasion was geared toward a Shiite majority

Everyone with a brain stem knew what the most likely outcome would be - and even the Bush Regime knew as well - that's why the talking point of "democracy will look like different things to different people" - they may have hoped - but they used that talking point for a defense once Iraq went theocratic. Bush will say - "it's not how 'we' see democracy, but it is how the Iraqis see democracy" (Bush needs Iraq to be a victory in the American people's mind, so that's why the spin to make it look as such - and any spin will do - even in the face of evidence to the contrary)

So it's laughable for the Press to promote the idea that Iraq being theocratic goes against Bush's "hope" for Iraq - since Bush didn't give a damn how Iraq turned out. It's just the Press promoting a lie. What the Press shoul be explaining to readers is how the vote was set up and how the votes were apportioned ( the problems found in the Iraqi Constitution) - so the people could know what an even bigger farce Bush's folly has been.

I was making a point in my other post - about how it was all just a lie - and since Iraq is Bush's lie - how could "hope" be dashed.


This article explains it wonderfully - Unfortunately, it's archived now.
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0913F83A550C728DDDAB0994DD404482

here is part of it - not archived.

By KANAN MAKIYA
Published: December 11, 2005

London

WASHINGTON and Baghdad will be tempted, with the adoption of a new Constitution and the election on Thursday for a four-year government, to declare victory in Iraq. In one sense, they are right to do so. The emerging Iraqi polity undoubtedly represents a radical break not only with the country's past but also with the whole Arab state system established by Britain and France after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

But in the larger sense, such optimism is misguided, for none of the problems associated with Iraq's monumental change have been sorted out. Worse, profound tensions and contradictions have been enshrined in the Constitution of the new Iraq, and they threaten the very existence of the state.

How did we get here? Much has been said about American failures in Iraq. And rightly so. But, as I've seen as a participant in political discussions both before and after the war, we Iraqis have also failed to lay the ground for a new order. For the new political elite cast into power by the elections last January has been unable even to begin to create a stable and strong Iraqi state to replace the one overthrown in April 2003. The increasing daily casualty rate for Iraqis, from 26 in early 2004 to an average of 64 in this fall, is only the most glaring sign that something has gone terribly wrong, and not for lack of any American effort to turn the situation around.

Unfortunately, we cannot expect the situation to change following Thursday's election. There is little chance that the winner will command the authority inside Parliament to reverse the decline, for a simple reason: the Constitution.

All signs suggest that this Constitution, if it is not radically amended, will further weaken the already failing central Iraqi state. In spite of all the rhetoric in that document about the unity of the "homeland of the apostles and prophets" and the "values and ideals of the heavenly messages and findings of science" that have played a role in "preserving for Iraq its free union," it is disunity, diminished sovereignty and years of future discord that lie in store for Iraq if the Constitution is not overhauled.

[Solly Mack]

50. cont.

---------------------------------------------------------

it basically explains why the Constitution is geared to play toward a Shiite majority - with the way the regions are set up and how that is just asking for civil war to explode (more so than already)

I don't for a minute believe Bush didn't know this was possible - regardless of how much money they used promoting their man. They had to know it was possible - because of the Iraqi Constitution, if nothing else. As far as I'm concerned, claiming Bush had hopes for Iraq is just another damn lie. He might have hopes for money and a foothold in the ME (for business/military) - but he doesn't have "hope" for the good of Iraq. I don't think Bush gives a damn how Iraq turns out and he never did. The headline reads "Us hopes" but the "US" didn't have "hopes", Bush did. I'm part of the US and I know they aren't speaking for me - so they have to be talking about Bush's "hopes".

Iraq has been one big lie, propped up by more lies along the way. Contrary to popular myth, a myth that is also myopic ,echo-chambered, deterimental and self-defeating, the Bush Regime can and do see the damage they are causing to the people of Iraq - they just don't care.

The invasion was a lie, the occupation was a lie, the Constitution is a lie.. and the elections - all 4 of them - were lies. Window dressings to truss up the big lies (myriad invasion justifications) so Bush can spin Iraq as a victory. Iraq was always a strongarm dictator away from full blown regional/civil war - The Brits didn't change that (they made it worse) - and America didn't either( they made it worse).

Bush might not have a sense of history but the business community does - and all business wants is someone willing to deal - regardless of the type of government involved. All business needs is the group with the most guns to ensure the oil keeps flowing (in dollars) - be those Americans guns, Iraqi guns - or even Iranian guns.

As long as business gets favorable treatment, peace - once they don't - war. And that's the ONLY "hope" Bush harbors.

[allemand]

55. I'm afraid that the next "logical" step might be the invasion of Iran

in order to prevent the formation of an "axis Baghdad-Teheran". This would explain why they aren't that bothered about a fundamentalist Iraq, at least as long as the oil keeps flowing. Iraq is now so divided that it will remain weak for some time, even with a fundamentalist government in power.

[Solly Mack]

56. exactly.... at least that's what I think it's building up to anyway

I'm probably wrong ...but when I think "Bush" , I think, "What's the move that carries the most potential harm to the people and the most gain to business?" It's not that I believe Bush sets out to harm people - he just doesn't consider people a factor in his thinking. Being expendable means you don't even rate consideration - you're just a problem to overcome, at best.

[yellowcanine]

51. Need to start the drumbeat now: Who "lost" Iraq to the Ayatollahs?

[HuffleClaw]

52. i seem to recall a quote by dear leader that

went something like 'there won't be a religious government in iraq'.

[wiggs]

53. win-win election for neocons

If Allawi (CIA guy) had won, we have neocon wet dream.

If religious right wins, all is not bad. With religious shiites in power, chances of continued insurgency, continued Iranian influence, and continued civil strife could increase. Therefore, our continued presence can be claimed as necessary.

We've seen evidence, over and over, that this administration is not interested in stability and peace in Iraq. I'm not sure that chances for stability have increased at all.

[adigal]

54. This is going to be really bad

Already, the Iranians made an agreement with Iraq to train their soldiers. (NPR, last week.) They are forging ties, and the United STates is trying to open communication with IRan so as to not get left out.

Imagine how families who lost a child over there feel about this, if they get the information from FoxNews.

[Pachamama]

57. This is what our soldiers are dying for? For a secular state in Iraq?

This is not what our Nation's soldiers signed up for...its not what my taxpayer dollars should be going to....

Yeah, Saddam was a thug and the country wasn't our first choice of how to run a country, but we have replaced it with something I think is possible worse for both Iraqis and the US.

[TrogL]

58. In other words, a complete and total clusterfuck

This shifts the balance of power to Iran.

Dubya now has no choice but to go ahead with plans to invade Iran in hopes of saving the oil fields.

Given that he's pretty much out of cannon fodder troops, he's going to thinking kind thoughts about football. The football.

[Lilith Velkor]

59. The US was only pretending hope for a secular state anyway

"Divide and rule" was always the real goal.

[rocktivity]

60. WINNER OF THE 2005 ROCKNATION "YOU CALL THIS NEWS?" AWARD

For the LBN story that is either the most blindingly obvious or was covered by us DU-ers months earlier.

Wasn't there a line in the Iraq constitution that said it was valid as long as it did not violate the precepts of the Shia religion? Shouldn't that have tipped them off?

:crazy:
rocknation

[ismnotwasm]

62. WHAT hopes?

If I wanted to be obnoxious, and I might, I get to say "I told you so" to some people I know. To me the outcome was crystal clear. I know one in particular who is no longer pro-bush, but VOTED for that motherfucker both times.
I don't have many republican friends, but I do know people who didn't seem to think about it one way or the other. Just thought it would be ok. That we were doing the "right" thing. Kind of apolitical and ignorant. Those kind of people piss me off nearly as much as republicans do. I have noticed them waking up a bit though, and they've been asking questions. (I'm there, of course to offer my opinions when asked)
When the media presents us as a polarized nation, they leave out the people who don't really give a shit. Until it starts to affect them. Even my republican father is starting to wake up and get pissed. He actually is starting to sound like the Democrat he used to be.