بينما تتضارب الانباء حول موقف الشيعه العراقيين من عمليه تحرير العراق.. وخصوصا تجاه الوجود الامريكي. فان هذا العمود

سيحاول تغطيه مختلف الاراء
وكنموذج لبعض ما يتردد في مراكز بحثيه واعلام, ندرج الرابط ادناه . نرجوا مساهمتكم في التعليق.

http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol...%20Straight.htm

As there are many conflicting stories about the real reaction by the Iraqi Shia to the Iraq liberation and especially the American presence.. This article is cover this disturbing issue.
As an example to what some research and media publishing , Please visit the following link:
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol...%20Straight.htm

BAGHDAD, Nov. 29 -- Iraq's most powerful Shiite Muslim cleric said in remarks made public Saturday that he opposed key elements of a U.S. plan for a political transition in Iraq and insisted that a provisional government be chosen through elections, challenging the Bush administration's proposal for relinquishing authority by June.

{...}

Sistani's objections are the latest sign of the clergy's growing influence in Iraq, where Shiite Muslims make up 60 percent of the country's 25 million people. That ascendancy has collided with U.S. ambitions to manage Iraq's transition and maintain influence over a government that will be linked to the United States through the infusion of U.S. aid and an American military presence expected to last for years.

from:
Leading Cleric Calls For Elections in Iraq: Sistani Spells Out Objections to U.S. Plan from The Washington Post

and

Iraqi Governing Council Voices Support for June Elections from The New York Times

Sistani Position on New Elections

The office of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani affirmed Saturday in Najaf that he had reservations about the Nov. 15 plan for caucus type elections. Replying to questions from a newspaper, he said (trans. J. Cole):

"First of all, the preparation of the Iraqi State (Basic) Law for the transitional period is being accomplished by the Interim Governing Council with the Occupation Authority. This process lacks legitimacy. Rather the [Basic Law] must be presented to the [elected] representatives of the Iraqi people for their approval.

Second, the instrumentality envisaged in this plan for the election of the members of the transitional legislature does not guarantee the formation of an assembly that truly represents the Iraqi people. It must be changed to another process that would so guarantee, that is, to elections. In this way, the parliament would spring from the will of the Iraqis and would represent them in a just manner and would prevent any diminution of Islamic law." He added, "Perhaps it would be possible to hold the elections on the basis of the ration cards and some other supplementary information."

Ayatollah Muhammad Ali Taskhiri, the representative in Najaf of Iran's Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei, called for an Islamic constitution for Iraq, and said he was sure that Iraq's Shiite leadership was aware of the sensitivity of this historic phase.

from:
Posted by Juan Cole at 8:36 AM

[B][COLOR=blue]There is a big misunderstanding for the role of Najaf's Hawaza (The Shia Supreme School) and the Shia community in Iraq and there counterpart in Iran. One must understand that the Iraqi Shia's have a totally different view to the Islamic State concept. Iraqis do believe that the Iranian model has its own mistakes and impracticalities. There were, and probably still more than a 1/2 million Iraqi refugees in Iran who learnts and lived the shorfalls and mistakes of the Iranian model and they all insist on a new democratic Iraq built on a democratical system, with a moderate Islamic influence that everyone has a share in its destiny(arabs, kurds, turkumans, shias, sunnis, christians and others)

BahirJ,

That is a valuable and extraordinarily interesting piece of information. I hope I can learn some more of the details and nuances of this region and its religions and culture.

I think most of the strategist currently working within the Bush administration may be aware of these differences and nuances of the Shia in Iraq and Iran, but they may not care. This is to suggest that their main concern is the natural and common religion that Iran and Iraq share. Many in the Bush administration (and throughout American history) have an incredible fear of Iran and, no matter how different the two Shia schools of thought may be, they will only see the “natural relationship” This is why they are hesitant to install immediate direct elections?

This is why I think some within the Bush administration were desperately trying to install Chalabi. They were convinced that the religious establishment was weak and a secular US installed government would be embraced by Iraqi in gratitude for “liberation” I do not think most of the Bush administration would be comfortable with an Iraqi government that has warm relationships with Iran.


The Historical & Strategic Context of Western Terrorism in The Gulf

It's time to talk turkey in Iraq
By Ehsan Ahrari

The fact that the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) - the ruling body of Iraq - and the Iraqis are living on entirely different planets was never more vivid than during President George W Bush's "stealthy" surprise visit to Iraq on Thanksgiving Day. As the American media were gloating over the fact that Bush made it to Iraq and back unnoticed and unhampered by any hiccups, influential Shi'ite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani reiterated that the provisional government of Iraq must be chosen through elections. That development, and the manner in which Bush left for, arrived at, and returned from Iraq, also spoke volumes about the shape of things in that country.

[...]

As far back as June 28, Sistani made clear his opposition to an unelected body - the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) - writing a constitution. To him, and rightly so, such a modus operandi for creating a new constitution goes against the very grain of democracy. Ironically, the resident of a non-democratic Iraq had to give lessons in democracy to the devout believers in and practitioners of democracy, the CPA, and, through it, the Bush administration. However, there are other reasons why that lesson needed a vocal reiteration on November 30, at a time when the American president was poised to capture the limelight emanating from his secret visit to Iraq.

L Paul Bremer, the head of the CPA, was driven by the desire to keep the IGC under control, thereby ensuring the emergence of a Western-style secular democracy in Iraq. Any initiation of the electoral process - a tedious one, indeed, for a highly unstable situation in Iraq - would have jeopardized, even undermined, the American control, and the attendant predilection for shaping the future mode of the Iraqi polity. That was one reason why Bremer stacked the IGC with Iraqi expatriates, who were handpicked largely because they parroted the American preference for secular democracy. However, once those expatriates started undergoing an unwitting process of acculturation to the Iraqi social and political milieu, they became progressively inclined toward favoring Sistani's edict of June. Perhaps a cynical way to look at the change of mind of those expatriates regarding the issue of conducting elections is to depict it as an integral aspect of their own maneuverings for gaining acceptance of the Iraqi populace.

more:
Asia Times Online Co, Ltd.

George,
You may find the real Iraqi reaction to the visit under the Abu Hussian post ..

As far as Alsystani.. I don't think his stand with the election is a gainst the American gfinal goals of having a democratic system in Iraq.. It is on the contrary..
This is exactly what the American wants.

The question is if they are ready to do it as Alsystany asked..

George B

Thanks for the comment. I think that the Americans now are more aware of the level of moderation Iraqi Shias has despite all the misery they faced in the past from criminals like Saddam Hussien and his thugs.

I would like to share with you this transcript Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz remarks at Georgetown University

I would like also to quote his empression about one of the Shia leaders Abdul Aziz al Hakim the brother of Moh'md Bakir al Hakim who was killed in the Najaf blast a couple of months ago

"But most impressive was his humanity and the conviction with which he spoke of his and his family's commitment to religious freedom. He told about how his recently murdered brother had intervened with Iranian authorities in Iran to permit Iraqi Christian prisoners of war to assemble to celebrate Christmas, and how his brother, a senior Shia cleric, had joined them for Christmas."

It appears certain to me that many of the assumptions of the Pentagon and State Department, indeed of the entire U.S. government, were flawed, and the situation on the ground in Iraq is much different than they expected to develop. They must now adapt to reality.
I believe the Administration (Bremer, the CPA, all of them) are now not so much afraid of a theocracy developing along the Iranian model (at least not immediately) as they are afraid that the minorities (Sunni and Kurd mostly) will fear the Arab Shia majority, and be afraid to join in a government with them.
In a free nation the major challenges often boil down to two questions. 1) How to prevent a strong and popular leader from taking so much power that the next election never happens. 2) How to protect the rights and secure the cooperation of the minorities.
In the case of Iraq, as it stands, there is the third question of how to get the minorities to join with the majority in the first place, and commit themselves to the new order.
While Al-Sistani's demands for popular vote NOW are consistent with democratic principals, it is not clear to me that he has given sufficient thought to those three problems.

(on a related matter)

If I may ask a question of Muterjem? You mentioned the "Abu Hussian post" but I did not understand where that was. I would like to understand your position on this. Could you tell me the Subject title where this is posted, or the date and time, or both, so that I may find it?

http://baghdadee.ipbhost.com/index.php?sho...w=findpost&p=79

I think the situation of incipient Iraqi democracy can be summed up with one writer's quote:

"Democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner."

For democracy to work there must be adequate guarantees for the minorities and, as has been pointed out, guarantees that any election will not be the last. Sounds like some sort of constitution which is then respected by all parties.

Shall I expect all those who keep teaching us " Democracy is the right of people to rule them selfs" are now telling another.. Democracy is " Allowing others to decide your destinay"..

The issue is not having Shia majority rule, because this would never happen under a democratic constitution. The Fedral system would prevent this from happening. Having in mind that the Shia is not the absolute majority..

As far as Alsystany.. What his Hukom was saying, is that the constititusion should be written by the real reperesntative of Iraqis, and direct elction by people is the only way that this election can get legitamcy..
Isn't that the basic step one in any real democratic system.. Why not when it comes to Iraq?
As far as non Shia, I think the issue is not being minority. Sunni Kurds have no issue with . Jalal Talabani already talked about reamending the process to comply with Alsystani's demands.. Christains have no objection's ..
The issue is with some Arab Sunni who afraid that such an election would make their dreams of steeling back the Iraqi decition again would be not possible for ever.

Salim, in my effort to be brief, perhaps I wasn't clear with what I meant by "minorities." I was not necessarily referring to Shia vs. Kurds, and the like. On any issue where a vote can be made, it is possible for "minorities" to be adversely affected. If a majority of farmers arises, they may vote in laws which adversely affect those who live in cities.

I should have added that the chief criticism of raw democracy is that it is the "tyranny of the majority." As such, it is tyranny.

The American example is a bit different from the present case in Iraq, and tempers our suggestions. In revolutionary America, "townhall" local politics was already well established, and the individual states already had governments which were elected (except for the English governor). Our constitution was formed by representatives of the states. What we think would be ideal is for democracy to emerge in Iraq from the "grassroots," with organization forming at local levels.

What we fear is that the majority now could load a constitutional convention and tilt any constitution toward that majority.

I agree that having the American-selected GC do it is conter-democracy. I propose a compromise that postpones a country-wide popular vote until after a constitution is formed by elected representatives from all areas of the Iraq. Then there could be a vote on that constitution.

Our American prejudice, I think, is that government is a necessary evil, which is dangerous to individual practice of rights, responsibilities, roles, and relationships. As such, it must be reined in. Further, government concentrates power, which provides an obvious target for those who wish to take it over. Thus the necessity for controls to prevent an election from 'being the last election." Remember that Hitler was elected into power, which he was able to shape to his tyrannical ends.

Averroes "I agree that having the American-selected GC do it is conter-democracy. I propose a compromise that postpones a country-wide popular vote until after a constitution is formed by elected representatives from all areas of the Iraq. Then there could be a vote on that constitution."


That is exactly what most people in Iraq asking for.. The issue is about if we are going "to elect or to appoint" those who would right the constitution..


There is no notion of having a majority Shia making the constitiution going to their side.. The Constitution passing would need the voting of absolute majority.. And shia are not..
So why we make a big deal of it and not getting the real represtation of people rather than appointing them.

If we start it with an illegel basis today, they later, some one would come and have this as excuse to retreat from..
That is what Alsistany was refering to.
I personally don't find election the best way, but I would go for it as the only long standing solution. That is of course having the final approval in the hand of Absolute majority to the constitution.

Salim, thank you for your reply. You are quite sure of some things that those of us outside of iraq are not so sure of. I keep seeing figures that put Shia Muslims at 55-70% of the population. Lacking a census....

You say: "There is no notion of having a majority Shia making the constitiution going to their side." We in America do not like such assurances. My German-Arab friend tells me that he is happy with laws in Germany which take away free speech because the government promises not to abuse them. Americans believe that governments will and do abuse laws which give them powers. So, we look on Shia assurances with suspicion, not because they are Shia, but because we perceive them to be numerous enough to maybe take control of politics.

Also realize that the American states had functioning democracy in all states in 1781, when we won our freedom from Britain. Our first constitution resulted in a failed government. Our present constitution wasn't completed until 1789, and the government it spawned didn't result until 1792. We think that slow without mistakes is better than fast with mistakes that result in the need to completely redo the constitution. And, yes, we are being a bit paternalistic here, as we were in Japan and Germany. Both of those countries took several years to develop their present democracies. We are, forgive me, a bit like parents launching their children, wishing them maximum independence but fearing for their mistakes.

But, from the point of view of Americans, the worst thing that could have happened in Iraq is if the Iraqis just rolled over and acquiesed in everything that the Coalition wanted. Instead, we are overjoyed that there is a cry for iraqis to take the reins of government and fend for themselves as quickly as possible. It is only among such people that democracy is possible.

You note: "If we start it with an illegel basis today, they later, some one would come and have this as excuse to retreat from" Their is much wisdom in this remark.

My point is that writing the constitution have no thing to do with voting for it..
What we should go for is to have the constitution be approved by absolute majority.. Which means all the minorities would have a say on it.
Agree with you no rely on promises..

Writing the constitution is a sensative process, having in mind two issues
1- All the conspiracy theory behind the Americans coming to change our Islamic culture. Any Constitution written by appointed people might make the constitution looks suspicious to Iraqis. . I remember when an Egyptian Minster was proposing some Arabs to write or to help writing it, there was a shock among Iraqis about how dare he is to !

2- having all suffering by Iraqis from the domination of "some minority being supported by external forces" ,the re domination is a real concern among Iraqis..
We don't want the same British appointed ruler experience to take over again..


It is a real opportunity for a real democratic system in the MD.. PLEASE don't let it go just for some un realistic doubts!
We don't want to ride a horse rather than a car , just becuase some one did that before .. Americans went through a different process because there was no car at that time.. And we deserve going to the best directly..

Salim, thank you for the points 1) and 2), of which i was only vaguely aware. We can certainly sympathize with the British experience.

To use you analogy, what we are afraid of is that by rushing, iraq may end up with a horse. As you know, automobiles make no sense unless their are adequate roads for them. In other words, the automobile would take more preparation than a horse as a solution.

Although this may not allay your fears, i must point to the Afghan experience. While imperfect (and politics is always imperfect), an Afghan method was used to select those who selected the interim government and wrote the constitution. In the end, they came out with an "Islamic Republic." You should realize that Americans think that government and religion should be separate. If the Americans had had any influence on the resulting government constitution, you can bet your bottom dinar that Afghanistan would not be an Islamic Republic. But, it was more important for America that Afghanistan be "of the Afgans, for the Afghans, and by the Afghans."

btw, I never liked the GC idea, but I thought it was workable in the interim as long as Iraqis could buy into it a bit. My own personal prejudice, and I speak for myself here, is that one measure of any successful iraqi government is that it does not have Chalabi. I consider him to be ambitious and dangerous. obviously, i do not have Bush's ear.

We can go with the British analogy!, what I am afraid about is getting our kids run into another 9/11 after one another century!

Indeed my in take about getting over a horse is that with car I can keep steering it on a well designed roads. With a horse you may end up going no where!
As for the preparation for democracy , having majority of Iraqis believe in a non Islamic state " by faith not only by analogy", also having the majority experienced the bad of tyranny, I think we are almost there. What a lot of westerners afraid about of having a real democracy is the issue of turning to an Islamic state by choice..
The problem with this realistic analogy is it is based on some previous experiences with Islamic countries.. What is missing here is that the majority Shiat in Iraq doesn't believe in that by faith. Iraq is only Arab country with majority Shia..
The last thing to compare Iraq to is Afghan one. For two reasons
1- Majority in Afghanistan is Sunni with nomadic background, just like our Trainglees.. With all sympathy to power and rule !
2- The real motive behind the Iraqi democracy exercise is to sell abroad.. You can't sell a bad product..

As far as GC , most Iraqis that I had talked to , are fan of the GC, the issue they would like them to rule through Iraqi decision and not being appointed. Some thing that may raise the same concern with any appointed committee.

By the way what you don't like with Chalabi, indeed making him very popular inside Iraq..

Questions, if I may ask:

1) Do a majority of the Sunni Arabs have the same view of Iraq with a representative government as does Salim?

2) If an absolute majority of Iraqi, consisting of Shia and Sunni Kurd can agree on a Constitution, but the majority of the Sunni Arab refuse, will not the Sunni Arabs continue to resist and fight?

In short, can Iraq get a majority of the Sunni Arab to go along with the rest? I am not talking about the Ba'athi and Al-Adwah and the terrorist types, but about the Sunni Arab in general. I am thinking that if the majority of the Sunni Arabs agree to a Constitution, then the Ba'athi shall fail and fall apart soon after. (Oh, and there are a significant number of Shia Kurds, are there not?)

Avverroes, I believe you are misrepresenting American history. There were only white-male landowners who were allowed to be involved with the growing republic. This is another reason why I keep insisting that our (The United States) only reason for being in Iraq is a military/business strategic intention. The insistence for ignoring Sistani is a strategic one, Bremmer wants to ensure that America is the hand in the puppet.

The fact that so many Americans are severely ignorant concerning the work and philosophical nature of our own Republic proves that our governments work should be treated with suspicion. You keep saying that Americans mistrust government that is wrong. Some Americans mis-trust government contingent on who is running the government. The fact that so many Republicans were quick to embrace the State/government in such a huge way when a Republican is in office proves this.

The United States did not mind the Islamic State model for Afghanistan. However, remember there are many within the Bush administration (who would like to invade Syria and Iran next) and a strong Islamic-Iraq would not allow an invasion of its neighbors—this is the primary concern—NOT DEMOCRACY!!!

Iraqi council sides with U.S., not cleric

BAGHDAD, Dec. 2 (UPI) -- A majority of Iraq's U.S.-appointed Governing Council is supporting a U.S. plan to select a provisional government and disavowing a Muslim cleric's advice.

As a result of intense lobbying over the past few days by Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator for Iraq, the council could be in for a showdown with Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who has insisted a provisional government be chosen through a national election.

"We are facing a very tense situation, perhaps the most tense since the end of the war," one of the council's Shiite members told the Washington Post. "None of us wants a confrontation, but we have to realize we are traveling down a road that could lead to a very big confrontation."

Council members and officials with the U.S.-led occupation authority said they remained hopeful Sistani's objections could be overcome with minor revisions to the plan but expressed an unwillingness to bend on the issue of general elections, on the grounds a national ballot would delay an agreed-upon handover of sovereignty, which is to take place by June 30.

Copyright 2003 by United Press International.
All rights reserved.

This is total foolishness! We are still trying to figure out how to help make a decent government in Iraq, and you are already having the U.S. invading Syria and Iran?

Does anybody in their right mind actually believe that it serves the U.S. interest to run havoc across the middle east and leave destruction behind it?

Does anybody believe that the U.S. is so stupid as to think we have enough soldiers to control Iraq, Syria, and Iran? We are having enough trouble getting the streets safe in Baghdad!

Idiots post here. Or they think Iraqis are idiots to believe them.

Lee,
I would say that the issue is not Sunni Arab against Kurd Suni's and Shia Arab..
As Abu Ayat but it in his article, some Outsider Arabs, Baathist and Wahabee's keep telling Sunni Arab in Iraq that Democracy is the rule of majority which means no say for them in future Iraq.. Most Intellectuals don't agree with this, but it might need time to make it clearer to others.

Your question/concern is very realistic though!

Lee,

Cheney's new adviser has sights on Syria
WASHINGTON - A neo-conservative strategist who has long called for the United States and Israel to work together to "roll back" the Ba'ath-led government in Syria, has been quietly appointed as a Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney.

'Israelization' of U.S. Middle East policy proceeds apace
BEIRUT -- Few disputed at the time that Israel was a factor that pushed U.S. President George W. Bush to go to war on Iraq. Just how much weight it had among all the other factors was the only controversial question. But what is clear, six months on, is that Israel is now a very important one indeed in the stumbling neoimperial venture that Iraq has become.

Syria sanctions could lead to invasion by United States
WASHINGTON: A tough sanctions measure approved by Congress against Syria on Tuesday could lead to a future invasion of Syria, a prominent US lawmaker said.

Senator Robert Byrd, a long-serving member in the US Congress and outspoken critic of US military policy in the Middle East, said on Tuesday in voting against the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Act that he feared the bill would be misused by US policy makers to justify future military action against Damascus.

Pentagon official: US may take action against Syria
Pentagon adviser Richard Perle said Tuesday that the recent Israeli attack on an alleged training camp for Palestinian militants in Syria was long overdue and that he would not rule out U.S. military action against the Arab state.

Perle, a close adviser to U.S. President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, spoke at a Jerusalem conference of conservatives from the United States and Israel.

Is Syria Next?
There’s been a lot of speculation that Iraq was just the first in a line of nettlesome problems in the Middle East that neo-cons wanted to “solve.” Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said in an interview almost a year ago that Iran should be the next target. However, it seems Washington has decided to step up its campaign against Syria.

Is Syria next on the US hit-list?
Israel's Infrastructures Minister Joseph Paritzky has ordered an assessment of the condition of an old pipeline to the city of Haifa from Mosul in Iraq, the influential Israeli daily Ha'aretz has reported.

The pipeline, which used to provide Haifa (now in Israel) with oil until 1948, passes through Syria. And given the lashing Syria has received from the US and Britain lately - including President Bush's statement on Sunday that it was holding chemical weapons - the report gains significance.Syria might well be next on the US hit-list for a "regime change" - the purpose being to restart the defunct Mosul-Haifa pipeline and solve Israel's oil needs.

And the Iraq war, after all, might prove to be just the first chapter in this project. The minister's order of assessing the pipeline's condition shows that Israel is reasonably sure it will be able to use it again, and soon. The pipeline would save Israel millions of dollars it currently spends to buy oil from Russia.

It will also help the US diversify its own supplies of oil. The pipeline was closed to Haifa after the formation of Israel, and was redirected to Syria. There have been several attempts since to restart the flow to Haifa, the daily says.

Is Syria next?
Amid the squat concrete towers and traffic bridges of the new and expanding Damascus, a few mud-brick houses endure like Palaeolithic mammals resisting the inevitability of extinction. Massive apartment blocks modelled on those of the Soviet Union and hotels straight from the American Midwest are transforming the Syrian capital into an Occidental artefact. Oriental structures, struggling under the weight of satellite receivers large enough for families to sleep in, survive on sufferance. Most stand in a state of near destruction, a wall down here, doors falling from hinges there, prisoners shaved for execution. Posterity can lay the blame on Syria's modern rulers: the French, who between 1920 and 1946 cleared acres of labyrinthine quarters to make room for cannon and tanks to control the natives; the few elected and many military regimes who succeeded them; and, latterly, the Baath Party/Army/ Intelligence Service junta that has been in place since 1970. Only in a small corner of today's Damascus, demarcated by the broad stone walls of the Old City, are ancient houses being restored and gentrified after generations of neglect. Syrians who for years avoided the dilapidated bazaars are revisiting the charm of mud and wood, stone and marble, running fountains and cobbled paths too narrow for cars. A few landlords are turning their empty palaces into hotels, restaurants and bars where the young stay late into the night in jasmine-scented courtyards to savour water pipes as their ancestors did in Ottoman times.

Is Syria Next?
Shortly after 9/11, the government received an extraordinary gift of hundreds of files on Al Qaeda, crucial data on the activities of radical Islamist cells throughout the Middle East and Europe and intelligence about future terrorist plans. These dossiers did not come from Israel or Saudi Arabia, whose kingdom appeared more concerned at the time with securing safe passage for members of the bin Laden family living in the United States, but--as Seymour Hersh revealed in the July 28 New Yorker--from Syria. One CIA analyst told Hersh, "the quality and quantity of information from Syria exceeded the agency's expectations." Yet, the analyst added, the Syrians "got little in return for it."

Anyone want my research on the invasion of Iran?

The United States government does not care to install a democratic government...only one that will do its bidding in the region!

Salim, the point of my mentioning Afghanistan was not to compare it with Iraq, but to give a recent example where America (and the UN) allowed the people of a nation to chose a form of government that we might not have chosen. It is true that some Americans fear that "Iraq might choose an Islamic government" but that would mean to us that democracy had failed, since we believe that no democracy can recognize and institutionalize religion. We think that it would make the Chaldeans, for instance, second class citizens.

My antipathy for Chalabi is personal, based on intuition. I have observed him for some years. i think he is dishonest, ambitious, and likely more concerned with his own gain than Iraq. But, as I say, i am not arguing for this, just reporting my own intuitions.

I agree with Bush that no one should say that the iraqis are "unprepared for democracy." But the insecurities you have addressed with lee must be addressed in such a way that all voters in the first election can feel comfortable with the result.

With a sideways glance at the ranting GB, i might add that I am not representing the American experience as perfection, neither at the beginning, where we had difficulties, nor now. Any society is a work in progress. Our founding fathers lay down a constitution which allowed us to approach the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, even when those same fathers could not institute such a society in their times. We still are in pursuit of that ideal.

George B.

I notice that you have posted another set of articles and now you have directed them to me. You mentioned me specifically by name.

Please do not do that again.

I have said to another, anonymous guest, that his ideas were total foolishness. If you continue to try to get my attention I am afraid I will have to say that to you also.

You are no friend of progress as I can well see. You dislike the current American government; well I dislike the real George Bush too, but I do not go about trying to tear down the idea of a free Iraq just because I dislike Bush.

I see you as a small terrorist in the market; except you throw your bombs into the place where people are discussing real ideas, whereas real terrorists throw their bombs into markets with real people just trying to buy food and other real things.

Do not try to engage me in discussion. I consider you a bad influence; I consider you an enemy of progress for your own petty reasons, I will ignore you if I can, but if I must deal with you, I will not be kind.

Averroes,

Let us make our debate more informative :-)

"It is true that some Americans fear that "Iraq might choose an Islamic government" "

There is no relation between having Iraqis choosing those who write the constitution and the possibility of Islamic government.

As far as we have the vote on the constitution based on the absolute majority.. There is no way that a majority constitution would be a nursery for any sort of dictatorship, including Islamic government..

It is on contrary, if you force some temporary non democratic mechanism that is easier to implement, you might end up doing nothing.And you might loss the real cause of getting there with all the sacrifices!

As for the Afghan, what I meant is that it might be good for Afghani but not for Iraq case. As I said get a car but it on the right one way road.. Don't ride a horse it might buy nothing.


Your quote "My antipathy for Chalabi is personal, based on intuition. I have observed him for some years"

May I ask you to give a specific example to what you had observed?

Your quote "But the insecurities you have addressed with lee must be addressed in such a way that all voters in the first election can feel comfortable with the result."

That is exactly what I meant by Absolute majority.. Yet there is still Lee's good point, what if some minority keep refusing the constitution..
I have no answer now.. But based on the great job that GC already did in cooperating between different factions..I am sure there will be no such dead lock so as to scarify the great opportunity of having a real democratic system in MD for the first time in history. That is exactly what most Iraqis are crying for today, Alsystani is just reflecting their feelings

Your Quote" Our founding fathers lay down a constitution which allowed us to approach the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, even when those same fathers could not institute such a society in their times"

Let me ask every one to be as courageous as those great fathers, let us complete their great job by having their dreams all over the world especially MD.

Salim, if I may ask, because your opinion on this question was not clear to me.

Do you believe that the majority of the Sunni Arabs will join with your vision of Iraq? (And again, I do not question about the Ba'athi and the terrorists--they will plague any free people--and especially Iraqi).

It occurs to me that Salim is not the one single Iraqi intelligent enough to discuss Iraq with western people who only have a vague notion of how things are. We western people may not be nearly as wise as we think we are. Perhaps it is just that Salim's English is good and other Iraqi do not think I will listen--I do not know about other people, but I try to listen.

George B, as I have said before, just because some crackpot nutjob writes it down that does not make it true. I have researched several of your "writers" and have (surprise) found most of them have a suspect (dare I say MARXIST) agenda.

I am very sympathetic to Sistani's desire for direct popular elections for the interim government and the constitutional committee. In a perfect world, this would be the best way. Unfortunately, neither the world nor the political situation inside or outside of Iraq is perfect right now.

The fact is that proper popular elections will take TIME. A census must be taken, a voter registration system implemented, political districts mapped out, polling stations selected, voter poll assignments made, election officials selected, staff hired and trained, a counting and audit process designed, equipment purchased, programmed and deployed. And those are just some of the logistical issues. Also, the elections must be free of coercion and intimidation. How can this be assured in the current security environment? Also, what about the political process itself? Party organization and registration, leadership identification and development, candidate nominations and selection. There must be an organized system to decide who gets placed on the final ballot.

Let’s pretend we had an election today where candidates just signed up to run. How long would that ballot be? How would voters react to a ballot with 2,000 names on it? How could the people vet the candidate’s leadership skills, their credentials and positions on critical issues? I love popular democracy but, just as BahirJ was making his great points about timing and location regarding the transfer of security power, we must have similar concerns with political power. In an environment that has lacked any true organic method for developing democratic leadership from the local level up, I wonder who the population considers their leaders to be? Those tribal and church leaders that managed to somehow survive Saddam? Whoever managed to work “on behalf of the people” with Saddam?

Iraqis do need to have more control over these democratic development processes. Americans and Bush need this as much as Iraqis need this, and frankly all those fighting the "resistance" need the transfer of sovereignty to take place relatively short term (as I suspect there is a growing population of Iraqis do mistakenly think the US does have Imperial designs on Iraq). But, popular elections will take too long considering the political and security climate. It could be that a modification of the US "caucus" method is really the best solution for right now. Popular elections will be held. They simply cannot be held by June.

Briefly translating the above:
ترجمه مختصره لما ورد في اعلاه
______________________________________________________
تعليق جورج
خبر_ رحل الدين الشيعي المهم في تعليقات نشرت السبت انه لايوافق على اسس الخطه الامريكيه للتحول السياسي في العراق ويؤكد على ان الحكومه المؤقته يجب ان تكون منتخبه. متحديا عرض اداره بوش بتسليم السلطه بحلول حزيران

----------------------------------------------------------
تعليق جورج
في تعليق لمكتب السستاني يوم السبت على تتخفضاته على الخطه الامريكيه"
قبل كل شئ قانون العراق للمرحله القادمه يتم انجازه من قبل الاداره ومجلس الخكم. هذه العمليه تنقصها الشرعيه , حيث يجب ان تقدم الى ممثلي الشعب للمصادقه عليها"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
تعليق باهر
هناك مغالطه كبيره حول دور المرجعيه في النجف.. و الشيعه في العراق واخوانهم في ايران. علينا ان ندرك ان الشيعه في العراق لديهم فهم مختلف.العراقيون يؤمنون ان التجربه الايرانيه لها اخطائها و نواقصها
هناك اكثر من نصف مليون عراقي لاجئ في ايران وعانوا الكثير من تلك التجربه ونواقصها
----------------------------------------------------------------
نعليق جورج


باهر
هذه معلومه مهمه. اامل ان اتعلم اكثر حول هذه المنطقه و دياناتها وحضاراتها.
اعتقد ان الكثير من الاستراتيجيين العاملين مع بوش بعرفون ذلك ولكنهم يهملونها بسبب خوفهم من ايران. لذلك يخشون الانتخابات في العراق
لهذا السبب انا اعتقد ان بعض القده الامريكان يرغبون تماما بتنصيب الجلبي. انهم يعتقدون ان المؤسسه الدينيه ضعيفه وان العراقيين سوف يرحبون بحكومه تنصبها امريكا اعترافا بفضل الامريكان
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
تعليق جورج

مقال من تركيا
يتحدث المقال عن الجوانب السلبيه من زياره بوش من وجه نضر كاتب تركي"احسان احراري"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
تعليق مترجم

جورج
تستطيع التعرف على وجهه نضر العراقيين من حلال قرائه مقال ابو حسين.
بالنسبه للسستاني, لااعتقد ان موقفه الؤيد للانتخاب ات هو موقف مضاد للاهداف الامريكيه النهائيه بتحقيق النضام الديموقراطي في العراق. انه على العكس.. هذا تماما ما يريده الامريكان. السؤال اذا ما كانوا فعلا مستعدون لتحقيقها كما طلب السستاني

________________________________________________________________________________
___________________
تعليق باهر

جورج
شكرا للملاحظه.اعتقد ان الامريكان الان اكثر اهتماما باعتدال الشيعه العراقين بالرغم من كل ما عانوه من جرائم صدام وعصابته.
اتمنى ان تشارك قرائتي لما قاله نائب وزير الدفاع بول ويلفوتز في خطابه في جامعه جورج تاون
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/200...secdef0833.html

احب ان اشير الى انطباعاته عن احد هؤلاء القاده الشيعه السيد عبد العزيز الحكيم اخ الشيد محمد باقر الي قتل في انفجار النجف.
"لقد كان مذهلا مشاعره الانسانيه و الايمان الذي يلتزم به وعائلته نحو الحريه الدينيه.لقد حدثني عن ما كان من اخوه المرحوم من طلبه من الحكومه الايرانيه ان يسمحوا للمسيجين من الاسرى العراقيين للتجمع للاحتفال باعياد الميلاد وكيف ان اخوه الذي هو رجل دين شيعي , شاركهم بالاختفال"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
تعليق لي

يبدوا لي ان افتراضات الاداره الامريكيه كانت غير دقيقه وانهم يواجهون الحقيقه الان. انهم الان يعلمون ان المشكله ليست في تحول العراق الى دوله دينيه بل ان المشكله تتمثل في تخوف السنه العرب من الشيعه العرب وفي الخوف من مشاركتهم في حكومه واحده.
في الامم الحره يكون التنحدي الحقيقي
1- كيف نضمن ان لا يعيق وجود كاكم قوي عمليه التول الديمقراطي الحر
2- كيف نضمن حقوق الاقليات و تعاونها
وفي حاله العراق هناك سؤال ثالث يتمثل في الطريقه التي يمكن بها حث الاقليه على مشاركه الاغلبيه وتكييف نفسهم مع الوضع الجديد.


سؤال اخر.
ذكرت موضوع ابو حسن , اين اجده
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

تعليق سول

لي
تجده تحت
http://baghdadee.ipbhost.com/index.php?sho...w=findpost&p=79 <http://baghdadee.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=27&view=findpost&p=79>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
تعليق ضيف-افيروس

اعتقد ان الوضع يمكن تلخيصه بمقطوعه لكاتب
"الديمقراطيه هي اكثر من جعل ذئبين وشاه يجلسون على مائده واحده"
لكي تنجح الديمقراطيه هناك يجب الاعتناء بحقوق الاقليات. ضمانات لاتجعل الانتخاب المرجع الوحيد.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
تعليق سالم

هل نتوقع من اولئك الذين علمونا ان " الديمقراطيه هي حق الشعوب بحكم انفسهم" انهم يقولون لنا الان انها " دع الاخرين يقرروا لك ما ينفعك"
المساله ليست حول كون الاغلبيه الشيعيه ستحكم. هذا لن يحصل ابدا تحت دستور ديمقراطي. الخيار الفيدرالي سوف يمنع ذلك من الحصول. اخذين بنضر الاعتبار ان الشيعه ليسوا الاغلبيه المطلقه.
اما بالنسبه للسستاني, فان الحكم الذي اصدره كان بان لجنه صياغه الدستور يجب ان تكون ممثله للشعب وان الانتخاب المباشر هو الطريق الشرعي الوحيد لذلك التمثيل.
اليست هذه هي اول المبادئ للديمقراطيه الحقيقيه. ولماذا لاتجوز عندما يكون الامر متعلقا بالعراق؟
بالنسبه لغير الشيعه, لااعتقد ان الامر متعلق بالاقليه, العرب السنه ليس لديهم تحفضات حول ذلك, جلال الطالباني تحدث عن تعديل العمليه بما يتناسب مع راي السستاني. المسيحيون لا يعارضون.
المساله هي ان بعض السنه العرب بعتقدون ان مثل هذه الانتخابات سوف تباعد من امكانيه سرقتهم مره اخرى لمصير العراق وتجعله حلما مستحيلا
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
تعليق افيروس

سالم, مع جهدي ان اكون مختصرا, ربما لم اكن واضحا عند ذكري للاقليات. انا لم اكن اقصد جعل الشيعه امام العرب. في اي وضع يكون فيه الاقنراع خكما, يصبح حقوق الاقليه في خطر. اذا اقترع عدد كبير من اهل الريف فانهم سوف يؤثرون على اهل المدينه.
كان يجب ان اضيف ان الديمقراطيه هي دكتاتوريه الاغلبيه.
ما نخشاه ان دستور يقره الاغلبيه سوف يكون لصاحهم.
انا اعترف ان جعل المجلس الحكم يفعلها هي عمل غير ديمقلراطي, انا اقترح حل وسط ان يتم وضع دستور من ممثلين منتخبين من مختلف من المناطق ثم يجري الاقتراع عليه.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
تعليق سالم
افيروس
هذا بالضبط ماتنادي اغلبيه الشعب العراقي . المساله هي في هل يكون هؤلاء معينين ام منتخبين.
ليس هناك من تحوف من كون الشيعه سيجعلون الدستور يسير لصالحهم, الدستور يحتاج للاغابيه المطلقه والشيعه ليسو كذلك.
اذن لماذا نجعل هذه المساله اكبر من حجمها ولا نسمح للمقلين ان ياتوا عن طريق الانتخاب؟
اذا بدئنا العمليه بطريقه غير شرعيه اليوم, فانه سياتي لاحقا من يحجج بذلك للتنصل منها. هذا ما يشير له السستاني.
انا شخصيا لااجد الانتخاب احسن اسلوب ولكني ساؤيده كاحسن وسيله تستطيع الصمود امام الزمن.. طبعا مع الاخذ بان الموافقه يجب ان تكون بالاغلبيه المطلقه.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
تعليق افيروس
سالم
شكرا للاجابه.. انت متاكد من شء نحن في الخارج غير متاكدين منه. انا لازلت ارى نسب للشيعه تتراوح بين 55-70%.
انت تقول "ليس هناك من تحوف من كون الشيعه سيجعلون الدستور يسير لصالحهم" نحن في امريكا لا نؤمن بمثل هذه التاكيدات. لذا نحن ننضر للتاكيدات من باب الشك , ليس من كونها صادره من شيعه, ولكننا نشعر انهم كثيري العدد بحيث سياخذون استقلالهم السياسي.
من وجهه نضر امريكيه, هو ان ياخذ العراقيون زمام المبادره ويعدموا كل ما يريد التحالف عمله. ولكننا سنفرح جدا اذا ماريانا العراقيون ينادون بالحريه ويعملون لاجلها.. هكذا ناس هم من يصنع الديمقراطيه.
ملاحظتكم"اذا بدئنا العمليه بطريقه غير شرعيه اليوم, فانه سياتي لاحقا من يحجج بذلك للتنصل منها" فيها الكثير من الحكمه
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lee,
I did not mean to offend you. The point I was trying to make is that political strategic concerns will inevitably have a bigger influence than commitments to certain political philosophies.

I have been reading some of the conservative papers and many of them are already accusing Sistani of being an Iranian puppet and they are claiming that he should be ignored. The Bush administration fears the possibility that Iraq will develop warm relationships with Syria and Iran. Will the Shia majority recognize Israel and ignore the Palestinian struggle? Many of us who were not under the illusion that this invasion was about “liberation” instead it is about projecting power and establishing military bases in Iraq and preparing the Iraqis for another confrontation with Iran.

The United States has the capabilities to have successfully assisted the new Iraq, instead our leaders wanted to save money (taxes were given back to people. During every war the President always requests higher taxes to assist with rebuilding, that did not happen for Iraq) because the desire to save the military for Iran and Syria. There is a reason the United States did not have the traditional Army (560,000 strong) with engineers and builders and guards for Iraq…they are not interested in rebuilding a nation unless they can be sure that it will be obedient.

Mr. Penn,
How you know the other authors were “Marxist” seems highly suspicious, they may be Leftists or liberals or even Libertarians but not Marxist. Again, what you have decided to do is attack the messengers and try to deflect others from reading the message.

I hope and pray everything happens justly in Iraq, but I do know that misrepresenting our government’s intentions does not help those struggling to control their own country. Many of us have relatives who came from Latin America where many leaders were overthrown only to be replaced with other “strong-men” all in the name of “liberation and democracy.”

As far as I can see, the United States only began to care about Iraq was when it did not win its war with Iran. The United States allowed Hussein to get away with many human rights abuses against the Kurds and Shia because they wanted a “strong-man” that could keep attacking Iran.

Revisiting Cold War Coups and Finding Them Costly

Conservatives who have intense influence within the Bush Administration write all of the following articles:

Pentagon official: US may take action against Syria

Bashing Bashar

Whose War?: A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest.

Letter to President Bush on the War on Terrorism, September 20, 2001

Calls to Attack Syria Come from a Familiar Choir of Hawks

Is Iran Next?

Iraq Wrecked, Is Iran Next?

Is Iran next after Iraq?

Is Iran Next on Washington's Hit List?

Tehran is a year or two away from acquiring nuclear weapons. Is the Bush administration willing to go to war -- again -- to stop it?

Is Iran next on Bush hit list?

A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
Participants in the Study Group on "A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000:"

Coping with Crumbling States:
A Western and Israeli Balance of Power Strategy for the Levant
The Stakes for the Region and the United States

George,
I would remind you that very long comments might ruin our post to Iraqi readers..
Once more , I am giving you two hours to publish a link to your repectful message ..That is before deleting it

Thanks to your support and perticipation

جورج,
ارغب بتذكيركم ان الملاحضات الطويله تؤثر على سهوله القرائه لبعض زائرينا في العراق. سامنحكم ساعتين لنشر تعليق يشير الى رابط لمقالتكم المخترمه.
شكرا لدعمكم ومساهمتكم

Thank you Mutergem for your work on translation.
I hope what I have said was worth the work.

Machine translation - التّرجمة الآليّة

شكرًا متيرجيم لعملك على التّرجمة .
آمل ما قد قلت كان يستحقّ العمل .

No thank you, considering the leftist rags you garner your research from, they wouldn't contribute much of any value or substance to the excellent discussion that was going on before you decided to take it in another direction.

Salim, could you expand on this statement?


Why/How are you certain this wouldn't/couldn't happen?

Regards

The Weekly Standard, the American Conservative, the Jerusalem Post, the New York Times. The Project for the New American Century (P.N.A.C.), Time, BBC, the CATO Institute, World Net Daily and the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ are hardly “leftist rags”.

Why would you make a statement that is so wrong? Really.

A Shiite challenge divides Iraqis

US backs elections by March 2005; a key Shiite wants them by July 2004.

BAGHDAD – The pace - and nature - of a democratic reform plan announced just two weeks ago is being challenged by arguably the most powerful figure in Iraq today.

Ayatollah Ali Sistani, a key leader of the country's Muslim Shiite community, wants direct national elections to create a provisional government.

The US-appointed Governing Council of top Iraqi officials is divided over whether to oppose the cleric or finesse his demand with partial local elections.

The dispute highlights the emerging contours of a power struggle between the majority Shiite population and other Iraqi factions. The outcome of the latest challenge could determine how soon elected representatives will take charge of Iraq, and whether it will happen before next year's US presidential elections.

more:
A Shiite challenge divides Iraqis

It seems our host is going to remove George B's long post on the evils of America, so my ranting about it here is now out of place.

Salim, after reading your replies and an article posted on Hammorabi's blog about Shistanui, my fears are somewhat allayed. But realize that, like Afghanistan, the choice should be Iraq's. We in America have been lucky in that since the beginning of our Republic, the losers in elections have always accepted the result and gone to work on the next election, two years for congress and four years for president. The military has never been involved in politics. This is what we wish for Iraq.

Several sources tell me that Iraqis have a true sense of country above and beyond their membership in a religious or ethnic group. If this is true, then as long as a constitution insures that no GROUP can dominate another, trust can be built in the elction system.

The key point you have reiterated is electing some Iraqis to write the constitution. In Afghanistan, this was easy, done by Afghans using a customary method. Even then, it took two years to get a government in. I am not sure that Iraq has any such method, and, as Lee says, elections need logistics. One simply has to know who can vote and be assured that all who vote are eligable and that they vote just once. This is very difficult. Even in america it is often said that the election day motto of the Democratic party is "vote early, vote often."

Once more on Chalabi: I was not aware that he was well-liked in Iraq. I know some consider him an outsider. Remember, i said it was my intuition; he just didn't appear entirely honest to me. I felt that he was feeding American and British intelligence what he thought they wanted to hear. In his television appearences, he did the same. Then there is the question of hiws Jordanian banking career. Finally, he went to Iraq even though the US military asked him to wait. many saw this as a move to grab power. I just believe that there are less questionable men in Iraq. But that is just opinion.

If it pleases you, I would be interested in knowing if you think that the descrition of Shia on Hammorabi is accurate.

Quuting from Goerge's link ..
I think the idea is not having a majority of Shia in the assemply, becuase this would happen in both ways, elected or appointed.
Iraq is geographically divided as per factions concerned. The only mix is baghdad.
So practicly , if the election happen per governate basis, as the agreed plan stted, the Arab Sunnis will have their fair share in both ways in the governates that have majority sunnis.

I think those who objected the election "some Baathist and Wahabee's background" , are indeed trying to push a real legitimate process inorder to back later off it . As Salim mentioned, based on being a non legitimate American forced one.
Most of those Iraqis who had not accepted the GC formation , kept arguing that it should be comming through election process, now , same guys are saying we should not have election for the interm council. Isn't that ironic?

If it is based on election, even a rough dirty one, then no fashist "Baathist or Wahabee's" would have the reasoning saying it was illegalle

Have a look to this article by THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/04/opinion/04FRIE.html?th
Might need registration, it is free though!

I like his


Have a look to what extent those in the academy might comply with what we are discussing here.
I would say that with such great and deep interest by the Americans, I am sure there will be on another British mistake!

I am at work and will reply to other questions on my launch time

Lee,



Please have a look to Guest's reply above.. I would claim that most intellectual Arab sunni's " that are not Baathist or Wahabee's" are not against the real democratic process.. You can confirm that with Zeyad, he is an Arab Sunni and from a well known and powerful Trainglee descendent family..

All what those who keep yeilding " Shia are comming", is just to put hold on the legitimate democratic process.

I asked Mr. Basim Mustaar to comment on this and we might have a detailed answer soon from an Iraqi shcolar that realy believe in.

Cool Breeze,



Very simple math, Shia are not more than 65%, Just like others, they are not single opiniated. If we assure the constitution to have a pass percentage , say 80% as absolute majority . Then there is no way an Islamic state can be expected.
First of all there is only 10% of Shia that might sympythise with such thing while. Second, the majority of those who might push for this are Wahabee's . It might be true that Wahabee's are finding a strong holds today within the Arab Sunni's , but they are a very low percentage compared to Iraqis who are against it.

To my understanding, there is any political group that might dare having such a goal in their agenda.. They know people would never vote for them.

U.S. Rejects Iraqi Plan to Hold Census by Summer

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Dec. 3 — Iraqi census officials devised a detailed plan to count the country's entire population next summer and prepare a voter roll that would open the way to national elections in September. But American officials say they rejected the idea, and the Iraqi Governing Council members say they never saw the plan to consider it.

[...]

The American plan for Iraqi sovereignty proposes instead a series of caucus-style, indirect elections.

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most influential Shiite cleric, is calling for national elections next June, not the indirect balloting specified in the American plan for turning over control of the country. But American officials, and some Iraqis say the nation is not ready for national elections, in part because the logistics are too daunting.

more:
U.S. Rejects Iraqi Plan to Hold Census by Summer

Quiet cleric a powerful voice in Iraq

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- He doesn't command tanks or hold a title with the U.S.-led occupation. He never appears in public and rarely leaves his small house. But Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani might be the most powerful man in Iraq.

His power comes from his pre-eminence among Iraq's majority Shiite Muslims.

[...]

"The time has come for us to get our rights," said Sheik Abdel Mehdi al-Karbalayi, al-Sistani's representative in the Shiite holy city of Karbala. "I'm not saying there will be military action. Maybe it will be civilian. But there will be instability."

more:
Quiet cleric a powerful voice in Iraq

______________________________________

Shi'ite demonstrators demand elections

HILLA, Iraq — Members of a Shi'ite Muslim movement demonstrated outside the local coalition headquarters yesterday to demand that elections be held before a new government and constitution are established.
The protesters held up banners and daubed cement blocks around the headquarters building with slogans such as "Down U.S.A." and "Death to America."

more:
Shi'ite demonstrators demand elections

A Leftist has his say.....


Sistani as a pure democrat?

What I meant by that was only that in his fatwas since June, he has consistently said that legitimate government must derive from the will of the people ("al-hukumah ash-shar`iyyah munbathiqah min iradat ash-sha`b" or words to that effect). He specifically says that sovereignty derives from the people. That seems to me as democratic as anything said by Enlightenment thinkers in Europe. Of course, Sistani does demarcate a limit to democracy, which is that the people must not legislate or adopt policy that directly contradicts Islamic law. But then all democracies are limited by constitutional provisions. A majority of Americans now might not vote for all the 10 amendments to the constitution that make up the Bill of Rights. But they are stuck with them anyway. Likewise, Sistani thinks an Iraqi democracy would be stuck with the "constitutional" principles of shari`ah or Islamic law. But he nevertheless insists on one person one vote as the guarantor of governmental legitimacy. That seems to me a commitment to pure democracy.

----Juan Cole