Semi-Daily Journal

What a crew of clumsy ignoramuses have presented America's face to the world! The rest of us've been wondering how Iraq would end up inevitably Islamic-fundamentalist, and now here it comes... Curious that for the last couple of months, the clerics were moderate (including Muqtada al Sadr!), even ameliorative. It almost seemed as if the U.S. had made a quiet deal to let them into the elective process--but if so, something's changed. We've been keeping Iraqis out of rebuilding contracts and even the people who like us are convinced we're there to take the oil. The expatriate crooks and nebbishes on the governing Council were probably the final straw.

Meanwhile the conservatives in the U.S. have been fatuously assuring themselves that, no matter what happens, the Iraqis would never choose to eject U.S. forces, for fear of invasion by Iran, Turkey, whomever. It seems to me just as likely they'll be very happy to show our snide little the door--and invite the French and Germans in to provide security.

Happy Tanksgiving!

Not saying the Iraqis won't show us the door, but what makes you think the French and Germans want to put the 100k boots on the ground that will be neded to keep the various factions from each others throats?

Oil contracts. Also, if elections bring in an Islamic Republic and the Americans leave, the interior situation may get a little quieter, and not as much force would be needed.

>>It almost seemed as if the U.S. had made a quiet deal to let them into the elective process--but if so, something's changed.

I'm not so sure about that - the impression I get from the media is that al-Sistani and al-Hakim are beginning to get annoyed, but are still willing to negotiate and compromise on some aspects of the elections. They're not quite at the stage of issuing fatwas against the infidel American crusaders just yet.

I agree with Steven that no one else, including the UN, EU, or Arab League, is even remotely willing to send large numbers of soldiers into Iraq while rebels and terrorists are on the rampage and killing any foreigner who breathes. A Shia-dominated Islamist or theocratic state might only mollify some of the jihadi fruitcakes; the Wahhabis will probably keep right on fighting. And it won't do much to stop the Baathists and disgruntled Sunni tribesmen.

As for maintaining American troops until kingdom come, I suspect fat wads of annual aid money, Egypt-style, and maybe some personal bribes, will go a long way to creating Iraqi-American goodwill.

P.S: Happy Thanksgiving to Brad & all other American posters! May your trips be safe and your distant relatives cordial.

Clyde Crashup writes: Oil contracts. Also, if elections bring in an Islamic Republic and the Americans leave, the interior situation may get a little quieter, and not as much force would be needed.

First, there is going to have to be a *lot* of money dumped into the Iraq Oil production system before enough Black Gold starts flowing to generate Black Ink.

Second, you think an Islamic republic would be a non-hostile environment for a determindly secular European garrison force? Whoooboy.

Look, there is no doubt that the European armies -with the notable exception of the UK army - are not in the same league as the Green Machine. The mainland European armies don't have the training, equipment or combat experience to match the US capabilities. But more importantly, they cannot logisticly support a sizeable force in Iraq, so whether they actually *want* the duty is pretty much irrelevant.

The real irony, of course, is that Sistani the Ayatollah is calling for full elections, while the US wants carefully stage managed caucuses. Maybe Sistani took Bush's speech about Arab democracy a little too seriously?

Apparently, since the article in question was published, there has been some progress between al-Sistani and the leader of the Governing Council on whether their will be real or "managed" democracy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/28/international/middleeast/28IRAQ.html?hp

Bremer is very bright, but his capacity for irony may be limited. Otherwise, he wouldn't use it against himself so readily. Bremer (or Bush, depending on how you want to look at it) fully intends to be the "one man" who determines the politcal structure of Iraq. Perhaps he should have asked whether Iraq"s political structure would be in the hands of a single Iraqi. Beyond questions of structure, al-Sistani is objectively arguing for Iraq's future to be dictated by far more people, more directly, than is Bremer (Bush).