Iraq in September
16 or so substantial parts of Iraq are not under the control of either the U.S. and its allies, or the Allawi government. On the other hand, the fighting we see on TV is confined to pretty specific areas. As Mark Steyn says, in August: "In 11 of Iraq's 18 provinces, not a single US soldier died." (Via The Corner).
What's the worst case scenario now? A civil war that escalates, and lasts a long time? Perhaps with major U.S. military bases still in place, but U.S. soldiers pretty much staying out of the fighting? Is this consistent with the oil pretty much flowing? Is there at least a chance, as Steyn says, that Iraq will end up with a thug who is at least a bit better than Saddam? (I can't resist adding: about like Saddam was back when he was considered a staunch ally of the U.S.?)
Ali Sistani still seems to be the major player. As far as I know, no one in our media mentioned him, at least as the key spokesperson for the Shiites, before the shooting started. Apparently he thinks Sadr can still be brought into the process of holding elections and building a constitution, if he is given a position of some seniority. Allawi, on the other hand, wants Sadr to be treated simply as an enemy or a criminal.
Sistani succeeded in scuttling a constitution that would have given the Kurds and Sunni Arabs a veto over major changes. Does Sistani want some kind of raw majority rule that will be unacceptable to minorities?
I guess I agree with Mickey Kaus and Glenn Reynolds: the sooner elections can be held on a significant scale, the better. This should demonstrate the good intentions of the U.S., and isolate those insurgents who claim to speak for the people but have no intention of holding elections.
Michael Young, who has favoured the U.S. effort in Iraq, and has generally been optimistic, now worries about recent developments, and points to some particular mistakes in the past. He complains, surely with reason, that the analogies to Vietnam are much too limiting.
Matthew Yglesias suggests on Tapped that the religious Shiites are key. The U.S. had better hope these folks do well in any elections that are held, or the insurrection will grow. The bigger picture: as Yglesias has said before, the U.S. regards elections in the Middle East the way the Saudis do. Elections are only a good thing if they don't strengthen the wrong people.
|
