Will it make any difference if Sunnis vote in large numbers in Iraq?

[Tom Rinaldo]

Honest question, left vague on purpose. With every previous vote held in Iraq, most leading above ground Sunni religious and civic leaders urged a boycott. This time there are calls going out from some Sunni mosques saying that it is a religious duty for Sunnis to vote. This time some Sunni's are offering to help guard polling stations. All of this represents a shift in Sunni attitudes toward voting. Do you think there will be any significance, regarding possible developments in Iraq, if Sunnis participate much more fully in the round of Elections this week than they have in the past?

[madeline_con]

1. No...

When DUB-ya said a pullout would "confuse Iraqis" in a recent speech, I could clearly see the "White Man's Burden" argument raise its ugly head. The Iraqis are ignorant children who need our guidance, and our brand of government alone will save the world from godless heathens enslaving us all.

(I refuse to post a sarcasm emoticon. If you don't get this post, read something else, please.)

[unapologetic.liberal]

2. I predict

they will finally throw flowers.

I also predict that there are at least 3 alternate universes to our own.

[newyawker99]

12. Hi unapologetic.liberal!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[unapologetic.liberal]

16. Cheers

[quaoar]

27. Welcome to DU

[stray cat]

3. The Sunnis may be giving representative gov a try.

However, if they don't like the voting outcome which I suspect because they are a minority things could go very bad. However, I hope there is a great Sunni turnout because at least they are giving it a go and if they do get any real power it might help Iraq stay together.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. You posted right before I made my post below this

Maybe I wouldn't have made it if I read your post first.

I think this is an important question. I have no idea how big Sunni turn out will really be, but one way or the other, I think it matters. I also hope their turn out is large, even though Bush would spin that to support his war efforts. I certainly hope that almost all DUers would rather see some type of primarily non violent accommodation reached inside of Iraq than an ever intensifying Civil War, however likely or unlikely such an outcome may be. The level of Sunni participation in this vote, and in the subsequent formation of a "permanent Iraq government" is not a complete non factor. Nor are possible changes in the Iraq Constitution that can be made by the newly elected Parliament by simple majority vote for the following four months.

[stray cat]

6. Hi Tom

I agree with you. A really strong Sunni turn out would be great. Its possible it may not change the ultimately outcome but at least there is a chance if they are willing to try active participation. If the government can come together enough to tell us to leave it might unite Iraqis and give the government credibility at the same time.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. Best case scenario

More secular Shiites increase their representation somewhat (now that Sistani is no longer endorsing a specific slate) and Sunnis significantly increase their representation so that, combined with the Kurds, they deny Iranian identified religious Shiite parties a clear working majority in the new Parliament.

That would either lead to a speedup of the disintegration of Iraq into warring factions, with no one able to politically resolve stalemates, or it would lead to deal brokering where all major factions had a seat at the table. That would either lead to a disintegration of Iraq or a brokered deal with some chance of sticking.

[Adelante]

8. The most interesting combination

might be Sunnis, Kurds and secular Shiites. With Iraq's secular history, there is some possibility of this sort of coalition forming, at least loosely. Also to be taken into account is influence exerted on Sunnis from surrounding Sunni nations. Even Islamic Brotherhood leaders in Egypt are encouraging voter participation in this election in the interest of putting the breaks on Iran.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

33. I vote for

a speedup of the disintegration of Iraq into warring factions, with no one able to politically resolve stalemates


ETA: The Iraqi car is already doing 60.

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. Most likely scenario. Agreed. n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

36. It's coming.

Like a slow-motion train wreck.

I see a 3 state solution or a 2 state solution with massive genocide. Sad.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. So why exactly is this question such a serious one inside pro insurgency

circles inside of Iraq, where debate on it has been ongoing and intense, but thought of as having no consequences here at DU, where so many closely relate to the legitimate national aspirations of the Iraq insurgency?

[Jai4WKC08]

9. It will make a difference, BUT

Not the ultimate difference.

It's important to any chance of stability that Sunnis turn out to vote in the election. If they don't, then full-scale civil war is probably inevitable. But Sunni participation is not enough in itself. As Clark has pointed out a number of times, we had elections in 1860. People in the South didn't like the outcome, so they went to war.

Today on Fox, Clark said something more along these lines. He said that after Thursday's election (assuming the Sunnis do turn out, I think... it was the premise of the question), the Bush administration will have about four months to pressure the Shi'a to change the constitution so that Sunni interests are protected and oil revenues controlled by the central government as opposed to the Shi'a south. If that doesn't happen, Iran will get the theocratic buffer state it wants. Bush may call it a victory and bring some of the troops home, but "it won't be a victory that we're proud of." From his tone of voice, I think he meant it won't be any kind of victory at all.

Seems to me what Clark is saying, and I have to agree, is that if the election and the immediate period afterwards leave the Sunnis with no hope for political and economic opportunity, then they really have no choice but to turn to the only outcome that offers hope, and that will be the insurgents and jihadists.

What I fear most is that, if Bush does pull troops out (which will be determined by US politics, like all of his decisions), the Iraqi military/police won't be able to control the insurgency, so the militias will step up the killing of Sunnis, and we'll pretty quickly be seeing outright genocide. And if Iran comes to their aid, the surrounding Arab governments will counter them, not to mention the Turks if the Kurds cause trouble, and before you know it, it's regional war.

Here's a question backatcha, Tom. If the worst case scenario I've described goes down, but not until 2009 when there might be a Democratic president, do we go back in? Do you think the American people will have the stomach for it? Or do we sit back and let the region go up in smoke, with potentially millions dead? And what are the ramifications if Iran becomes a nuclear power in the meantime?

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. God, I hate the worst case scenario

The Oil companies are the ones who profit off the sale of Mid East Oil, but it is consumers who purchase and are dependent on it given current U.S. energy policies, which will not have changed significantly by 2009. I don't think genocide would trigger American public support for military action, but the chaos that would flow from that genocide and the effects that chaos would have on world Oil markets with severe resulting price rises for gas (Jet fuel too) and heating oil might stoke a few fighting sentiments. So I predict you get the two worst halves of your question cobbled together under that scenario; a million dead and THEN U.S. military intervention.

If the President of Iran keeps advocating the removal of Israel from the Middle East and an intelligence near consensus is reached that Iran is going nuclear, I doubt Israel would stand back and just let it happen. If Israel attacks Iranian nuclear facilities the Islamic backlash will be much more severe this time then when they went after Iraq's nuclear program. For one thing Al Qaida and related groups weren't much of a factor then. That doesn't even factor in the reaction of the Sunni Arab States who historically have often viewed non Arab and Shiite Iran as an enemy, not an ally.

Once Israel is smack dab in the middle of the equation the American electorate swings toward more support for military action.

[kentuck]

11. Is there an assumption that the Sunnis will accept the vote ?

How do we know it will not divide them even further if they lose? I do not see the "vote" as anything special. I would think it would be more effective to sit down the leaders of all the factions and attempt to come up with a workable solution.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. I am not assuming that they either will or will not accept the vote

I am just noticing a shift on many Sunni leader's part toward encouraging Sunnis to vote rather than encouraging them to boycott this election. There has to be some reason for that shift. Beyond that we are all speculating.

I speculate that the shift represents an opening for those "sit down" discussions to take place within the context of the new Parliament that is about to get elected, assuming Sunni's are not overly angered by the results of the voting.

[kentuck]

15. I think the "shift" you are talking about is Administration propaganda....

and should be taken with a grain of salt. If they do sit down and talk, that will be the most hopeful sign, imo..

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. Salt always. But it is not just propaganda

Here is a European link that highlights some of the international efforts underway. And major Sunni groups themselves, who boycotted the last elections, have filed candidates to run in this weeks election. That is public record.

25/11/2005
UN Support For Arab League Meeting Seeking Iraqi Reconciliation
http://www.europaworld.org/week247/unsupport251105.htm

[Adelante]

14. For one thing, the rules have changed

They're not going to lose. I don't think they expect to win, either, but they should be able to get something similar to the Kurds in size of representation. Last time the seats were allocated nationwide proportionally; this time each province is treated as a distinct constituency. The Sunni provinces will get their number of parliamentary seats no matter what. So there's more of a reason for Sunnis to vote than there was in the transitional vote. It appears the leaders are doing what you suggest already from news reports, trying to work a solution.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. Here's a question for folks

All pure speculation for now of course. If Sunni participation in this week's Iraq election dramatically increases, and if more Sunnis are Incorporated into Iraq's next government, would you support a timeline for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq requested by that government if that timeline kept U.S. forces inside Iraq longer than you now want them to stay?

[welshTerrier2]

19. great question ...

the answer is: No way ...

the Iraqis should have ABSOLUTE CONTROL over whether the US has a RIGHT to remain in their country ... if they say we have no RIGHT to be there, we have to leave ...

HOWEVER, if they want us to stay, ONLY THE AMERICAN people should have a RIGHT to make that determination ... most Americans understand that we should leave Iraq ...

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. I agree with all of your propositions

So I gather your position is, for example, that if the new (hypothetically for this discussion more representative) Iraq government wants us to be out of Iraq within 12 months, that you would still want to leave sooner? I understand this skirts the question of how representative of the will of people inside Iraq the new government will actually be. Of course it should be an American decision when we withdraw our troops even if others are requesting them to stay, and that we have no right to keep troops inside Iraq without Iraq's consent.

[welshTerrier2]

22. exactly

the truth is that, vote or otherwise, i don't trust the current Iraqi government at all ... i'm not sure whether there's any way to ensure a fair vote, but i would strongly prefer a direct referendum (i.e. a plebiscite) on whether US troops should leave Iraq ...

as for withdrawal timelines, i favor next weekend at the latest ...

what an upside down political situation we're going to have IF bush agressively moves to get most of the troops out of Iraq after the Iraqi elections ... will Democrats like Kerry and Clark push for keeping them there longer??

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. With someone like Bush in power, no speculation is too far out

But No. This is what I think will happen relating to that scenario. Two general results can come out of the next Iraq government. One is a government that to some extent tries to factor in the real feelings of their constituencies, the other is a government that prioritizes their own needs over the people's desires. No true American puppet government is any longer possible in Iraq, but one may come to power that has an interest in playing the American card in some way for their own purposes.

Democrats like Kerry and Clark will not push to keep Americans in Iraq longer than the Iraq government wants them to stay, I think that is a safe bottom line. And Bush does not want to see a collapse of Iraq's new government before the mid term elections. Those are the book ends to your question. If the new Iraq government wants American forces to remain in Iraq it will be because they think they need them for the time being in order to survive. Bush won't pull the plug on them much faster than they think they can handle, because if Iraq blows up before November it hurts the Republicans. If Iraq ask for the U.S. to leave soon no Democrats will stand in the way of that.

[mmonk]

21. It doesn't matter who is on board or matter who wins

as long as U.S. multi-national corporations can profit

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. If Sunni turn out is reported by all sources to be high

Leading Democrats must say it is an encouraging sign. Does anyone argue against that? It is fine to add warnings and disclaimers about premature conclusions and the dangers yet ahead, but it would have to be welcomed as at least a potentially positive development. Anything less than that puts Democrats in the position of appearing to want an Iraq transition toward Democracy to fail in order to disprove Bush's war.

I say the War in Iraq was unjustified regardless of whether Iraq eventually gets a stable and better government. Seeming to begrudge hopeful developments inside of Iraq is a loosing stance, both morally and politically. It is possible to argue for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, if that is your position, while still welcoming any hopeful news coming from that tortured nation.

[Adelante]

25. Sunnis

I missed this article on Sunday, but it is very interesting in terms of Sunni movement toward a political settlement.

Iraq's Sunnis urge talks with rebels
U.S. pullout alone won't avert civil war, they say

Robert Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer

Sunday, December 11, 2005


As the Bush administration and congressional Democrats argue over whether and when to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq, Sunni Arabs with extensive knowledge of the insurgency say that troop withdrawal by itself will not halt the violence consuming the country.

In interviews conducted by telephone from the United States and in Iraq, political and religious leaders and other prominent Sunni Arabs warned that if a unilateral U.S. withdrawal is not accompanied by other steps, including negotiations with insurgent groups, an all-out civil war between the majority Shiites and the Sunnis could result.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/12/11/MNG0FG5LJN1.DTL

Read the whole thing.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. "Under the Sunnis' worst-case scenario..."

"Under the Sunnis' worst-case scenario, President Bush would begin a pullout of American ground troops soon after the election, claiming the new government increasingly capable of handling the country's security. This, the Sunnis interviewed say, could lead to Shiite-led scorched-earth counterinsurgency campaigns in Sunni areas, backed by U.S. air raids, intelligence and logistics.

"This is a big danger," said Isam al-Rawi, a leader of the Islamic Clerics Association, a Sunni religious council that is thought to have connections to some insurgent groups. "The only way to stop the resistance is through negotiations and political steps, not more killing."

To avert such a scenario, al-Rawi and other Sunni leaders are pushing for a series of steps that, they say, would lead to a cease-fire by most of the insurgent groups and a peaceful U.S. withdrawal."

Reading this article it almost seems like there is some basis for a shred of hope for Iraq IF the Shiites don't attempt to form a hard line government after the elections. That's a big If.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. I found the byline to this article to be interesting also

"An Iraqi correspondent for The Chronicle, unnamed for security reasons, contributed to this report from Salahuddin province in Iraq."

[Donna Zen]

29. Lots of "ifs"

Who are the Sunnis that are voting? The Sunnis while more united than the Shi'ites still have a large division: those who are more Baathist oriented, those who are religious non-Baathists, and the more rural Wahhabi Sunnis. Note: one of the Sunni clerics whose was on this week's ballot was killed today.

The Shi'ites are even more fractured. There are some Shi'ites who don't want a secular government at all.

Plus, many of these groups are devoted to the rise of one mullah or another. On some southern Iraqi public buildings only the flag of Iran is flying.

I'm skipping the Kurds who are not Arabs, but are Sunnis.

And what wizards are talking to bush? There's always that bile-producing thought to consider.

Personally, I'm holding back with any predictions because you can't know what you don't know and the unknown....blah, blah, rummyspeak.

I've asked Dan Juma who is currently posting at CCN if he has any insights. He does know stuff but I don't know why.

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. Who am I to know? There are many ifs

The closest I've ever been to Iraq was East Berlin, once, so I'm no expert. I pay attention to stories like these in the context of what Wes Clark has been saying. Which is that there is still some small opening for progress toward stability inside Iraq possible under the best circumstances, but the time is now for that opportunity to be seized upon because it will no longer be possible soon if it isn't done now. Clark never gives odds, but he never expresses optimism either, and I think that's a stark clue. What he does express though is concern for how bad things may get if things go badly. Given that, if a door is left cracked for a couple of months after the election, hopefully it won't get slammed shut.

[Donna Zen]

31. This may not be what you want to hear:

Sectarian resentment

A senior U.S. military official in Baghdad familiar with Iraqi army operations said American officers are concerned about the lack of Sunnis in the Iraqi forces and have started a massive recruiting campaign. In the past three months, some 4,000 Sunnis have been recruited and are undergoing training, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic.

"We never intended to create a Shiite army," the official said. "Clearly, one of our number one concerns going forward ... is sectarianism ... that revenge mentality."

And there is this http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/13/164456/51">Kos diary. While one of the sources is The Washington Times, some of the facts there ring true. 100,000 Iraqi exiles returned from Iran shortly after the US occupation<---not a good thing. Also, while we're busy busting up the place, Tehran has seized the opportunity to build schools and hospitals in addition to their embedded death squads and secret police. In addition to addition to many things, I weep for the Iraqi women.

After my last post, I got to thinking about something that bothers all of us. bush...even if he had an advisor in charge who saw what was happening, does the administration have anyone talented enough to pull off what will prove to be delicate negotiations. Personally, I think not. The State Dept. was gutted of its best and brightest at least 3 years ago. Seriously.

Oh and here's a hair-burning note: Tonight on Blitzer, Biden named a list of people who agreed with him (all republicans) when he said a year and half ago that we needed a "contact group." Can Biden piss me off any more? Ah....and where did ya learn that catchy "contact" phrase Joe?

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. Nothing I haven't been reading already

I am not hopeful Donna. But Clark knows all of this also. He certainly has his sources. This is the end game, the formation of the "permanent government" and the finalizing of the Iraq Constitution. If any cooperation is going to break out it has to break out now.

Some of our own forces on the ground there have a good sense of what needs to be done. Many Iraqis know exactly what needs to be done if full scale civil war is to be averted. Some regional leaders from Arab nations know what needs to be done also. If any leadership is shown to pull Iraq back from the brink, I don't expect for it to originate in Washington.

I think the only slim hope is for players close to the scene to collectively decide on their own that they don't want continuing chaos and mayhem in Iraq, and then have them push Washington into taking a position that does not sabotage progress locally initiated. Bush doesn't know how to make progress happen but he would gladly take credit for it if it is handed to him gift wrapped. The United Nations and the Arab League have both gotten more involved in Iraq recently. At this point I think the majority of Iraq's citizens would rather avoid a full plunge into civil war and would support compromises needed to avoid that. They are the ones with the motivation to do what needs to be done now. They are the ones with the contacts. What Clark has proposed are a few American moves that could, in his opinion, help create conditions for people inside of Iraq to make progress on their own issues. The article that WesDem posted here echoes that thinking. But as you note, there are powerful forces inside Iraq now that don't want to settle for less than total dominance. The only thing I expect from the Bush Administration now is an attempt to take full credit if somehow something short of awful comes out of this in Iraq, due to efforts made by the people who actually live and die there.

[Donna Zen]

35. From Clark's post:

The administration knows about Iran, they just don't know what to do.


OMG :wow:

[Donna Zen]

37. FYI...great post from Kos:

This poster answered many of my questions at Kos a true "must read":

Thanks go out to MindRayge...

If any ballots are coming into Iraq from Iran they are to benefit SCIRI. SCIRI is likely responsible for creating a letter that supposedly came from Sistani that advocated voting for the UIA. In a recent statement Sistani gave no such endorsement. Without these kinds of nefarious activities SCIRI will lose quite a bit of influence...


Right now we are probably seeing the first major splintering of the Shiites. A marriage of convenience that was never to last. Dawa, which is the party of Jafaari (the prime minister), is likely to face some backlash from the people since services hadn't improved nor has security on his watch. Of course he is also seen as a puppet of the US and that won't endear him to the people. SCIRI is likely to want to capitalize on that. However, considering how long SCIRI was in exile it seems likely that many of the young members of that militia are actually Iranian born. Regardless the distaste Iraqi factions have for each other - they aren't fond of the Iranians.

Moqtadr al-Sadr's people are likely to gain big. .....

Rather telling and quite likely the beginning of the public unravelling of the forced marriage of the Kurds and Shiites by the US. This too may lead to bloodshed over the issue of Kirkuk for one and second since the Kurds are by a vast majority made up of Sunnis. When the Shiites denounce Sunnis they are also denouncing the Kurds. Trying to keep the marriage together seems impossible - for sure in the long run. it may even fall apart early as this elected parliament has to solve the unresolved issues in the constitution. How the US thought it could make this alignment work is beyond me.

If people were thinking Iraq was a debacle before, this upcoming election and the subsequent fallout will make all that came before it appear calm, organized, and disciplined.


by MindRayge on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 12:42:25 AM PDT

Also, I listened to the mp3 of Clark's interview with KTAR which I highly recommend. It was just excellent in filling in some gaps. I'm glad I listened because the transcript doesn't do it justice:

"...I’ve had a lot of time in my life working Middle East issues as well, so this is my best judgment. I would hope that every person will understand that this cannot become simply a matter of domestic politics. If it is, the losers aren’t Democrats or Republicans, they’re Americans and our country. We have to do the right thing for America. There are serious issues at stake here, not issues about elections, but serious issues. I fault the Bush administration for so politicizing this issue and I hope we Democrats will have greater wisdom and greater stature and be able to resist politicizing it in return."

[Parche]

38. Iraq

I dont care if the Sinnus or the Etiish or the Sunnis or the Shiites

It is not worth over 2000 of our brave soldiers dead so the Iraqi's can vote


That is a bunch of crap, our military is in place to protect OUR country
not any other country