Iraqis making history

Friends, mark your calendars. Iraq's people are these days, finally, becoming the subjects of their own history. It now seems clear that in the process they will strike fateful blows not only to the ridiculous "Rube Goldberg election plan" proclaimed by Washington and its quasi-puppets of the IGC in November but also, beyond that, to George W. Bush's entire concept for a US-dominated Iraq that would lead the rest of the Middle East into a relationship of long-term servitude to US commercial interests. Such are my conclusions after reading a wide range of reporting of yesterday's 100,000-strong, Sistani-led demonstrations in the heart of Baghdad.

[more]

Iraqis demand polls as U.S. seeks UN help

Tens of thousands of Shi'ite Muslims have marched through Baghdad to demand early elections, as Iraq's U.S. governor entreatied the United Nations to back his political plans for Iraq.

[more]

An Absence of Legitimacy

On one side is history's most awesome superpower, victorious in war, ruling Iraq with nearly 150,000 troops and funding its reconstruction to the tune of $20 billion this year. On the other side is an aging cleric with no formal authority, no troops and little money, who is unwilling to even speak in public. Yet last June, when Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani made it known that he didn't like the U.S. proposal to transfer power to Iraqis, the plan collapsed. And last week, when Sistani announced that he is still unhappy with the new U.S. proposal, L. Paul Bremer rushed to Washington for consultations. What does this man have that the United States doesn't? Legitimacy. Sistani is regarded by Iraqi Shiites as the most learned cleric in the country. He is also seen as having been uncorrupted by Saddam Hussein's reign. "During the Iran-Iraq war, Sistani managed to demonstrate that he could be controlled neither by Saddam nor by his fellow ayatollahs in Iran, which has given him enormous credibility," says Yitzhak Nakash, the leading authority on Iraqi Shiites. The United States fears that he will brand it as colonialist and the new transition government as a puppet regime. American officials know these few words could derail their plans. The occupation can survive an insurgency, but it cannot survive 10 countrywide protest marches with thousands chanting, "Colonialists go home!"

[more]

When Sistani speaks, Bush listens

Who is the most powerful man in Iraq today? Not L Paul Bremer, the US viceroy of Iraq, not even Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of the coalition forces. It is that quiet Shi'ite cleric who is seldom seen in public, and who does not grant any interviews, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani. He communicates with his followers through written edicts (fatwas), and everyone, including the US president, listens.

[more]

Why the US is running scared of elections in Iraq
Washington's plan to transfer power without a direct vote is a fraud

U.S. Tries to Give Moderates an Edge in Iraqi Elections

UK officials say Iraq elections by June viable

  thanks to Juan Cole

The $500 billion fire sale
In a shattered postwar Iraq, there are rich pickings to be had - and for US businesses at least, it promises to be a risk-free bonanza. Naomi Klein joins those at a trade show jostling for a stake

  thanks to Yolanda Flanagan

The devil and L Paul Bremer

A devilish thought is forming in the back of the American mind: which is better, to have Iraqis shooting at American soldiers, or at each other? During the Cold War, Moscow stood to gain from instability, and Washington sought to stabilize allied regimes (Iran being the exception that proved the rule). Now, with no strategic competitor, America can pick up the pieces at its leisure. As in finance, volatility favors the player with the most options ( Geopolitics in the light of option theory, Jan 26, 2002). No one in the Bush administration wants to let slip the dogs of civil war. On the contrary, the White House still hopes that Iraq will set a precedent for democracy in the Muslim world. Yet civil war is the path of least resistance, so clearly so that the punditry of the world press has raised the alarm with one voice. A Google news search turns up 900 hits for the search terms "Iraq" and "civil war". What is so bad about a civil war? No self-respecting state ever has been formed without one. All the European countries had at least one (some of them called religious wars). America has had two. The Middle East and Africa have them all the time (Civil War: A do-it-yourself guide, Aug 29, 2003). States are founded on compromise. Civil war is just nature's way of telling the diehards to slow down.

[more]