What a complete and utter mess, and those responsible for this fiasco will never be held to account (International law only applies to the little people).

I don't understand why the Kurds would trust the Americans. Thanks to the dictator they installed they were treated like shit.

the Kurds must decide whether to pursue the interests of Kurdistan or those of Iraq.

I think they decided that a long long time ago with their demands for their own independant state within Iraq.

And given that they chose to ally themselves with Iran during that war and that they have refused offers of automony prefering to embark on rebelllion, I would suggest that care as much for Iraq as their allies the Israelis.

Why don't they just simply let the Kurds run things for a few years, if they are that good at things. Cut out the front men, get some real movers and shakers pepping things up, innit.

Or, are they kingmakers, because the leaders would never get enough support without them. So, bought and paid for support of a well dodgy regime?

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

I've long wondered (in the game of real politik) why the US doesn't just create 'fortress Kurdistan'. Turkey has been misbahaving (ie not doing what it's told) and, Iraq is on the verge of creating the shiite crescent.....so why not suport the Kurds and give them all the land they want in the region...including zones of Turkey all the way to the Mediterranean Sea.....and large swaths of Iran. The US would have purchase rights to all the oil in Kirkuk, and a nation totally dependent on the US for security in a very nasty neighborhood. The US could have a secure long term large active military base in the region on Irans border in a nation that owes its existence to US power. Not pretty, but it would be effective....if you like that sort of thing.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

As much as I personally dislike Maliki and think that his continuing as Prime Minister is not a good thing for Iraq, I think the US trying to change the outcome of the political process in Iraq after they opted for Maliki bodes even worse. We need to stay the fuck out of it. For better or worse, it is as close to "democracy in action" as we're likely to see.

As for the Kurds, they should act in whatever way is in their best interests, not in what we want them to do.

This is the moment for the Kurds to be flexible and collaborate with the central government. About 30% of them are Shia anyway I believe. The truth is that the US is on its way out and upsetting all your neighbours at the same time is never good strategy in the long term.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

Ranj is far too optimistic about the Kurdish position. It is Iran that is the kingmaker, not the Kurds.

Remember, if you will, that the Kurds lost seats in the election, and may well get fewer ministries than before. No-one's sure that Talabani will be President again.

As for the Kurds' "Nineteen Demands" - a lot of demands don't you think? - the parliament will have to vote on them. If it goes like what happened with the Oil Law, they will never be voted through, because Arab Iraqis don't agree with the Kurds' outrageous demands.

Couldn't agree more with Ossola, the Kurdish position is actually in decline. That is why they are making so much noise.

Did you hear that one about how the Kurds sent a delegation to do fringe meetings at the Conservative Conference? Extraordinary that Kurds feel the need to lobby the Conservative Conference! It's obviously a very big propaganda operation. Including on CiF, as we see.

Yet, with delay and compromise marking the Kurdish role in Iraq

A far more welcomed approach than bullets and bombs. Perhaps haste is not what Iraq needs but a bit more wisdom. As you well have stated, what would be the point of making concessions that later will be dismantled when they stop being convenient for the other parties.

the future of the country itself as well as that of the US role in Iraq as it prepares to withdraw completely at the end of 2011

Do you want to bet on the US leaving bases behind?

Crucially, therefore, the Kurds must decide whether to pursue the interests of Kurdistan or those of Iraq.

Or those of the US.

Far from being "kingmaker's", the future looks pretty grim for the Kurds. Getting in bed with the Israeli's is likely to prove a disastrous move in the long term. Though i've no doubt they will have been sold all sorts of interesting military hardware, and will provide a good "divide and rule" pawn for The West's designs on the region.

Whitt:

the US trying to change the outcome of the political process in Iraq after they opted for Maliki bodes even worse.

Did Iraqis opt for Maliki? It seems his block didn't win an outright majority and that Allawi got more seats. In this context, were the Kurds to side with Allawi and SCIRI to jump in bed, wouldn't it be fair to say that most Iraqis' representatives would have opted against Maliki?
Saying that Maliki has a popular mandate seems a bit like saying that the Tories had a mandate in Britain after the last election - they couldn't be said to have one until they agreed a coalition with the Lib Dems. In that reading, the author seems to have a point - the Kurds have the potential to be electoral kingmakers. Whether they manage to make the best use of that - by moderating their demands - is another matter altogether.
BTW, there's an interesting - and very worrying - article in today's IHT about how "Awakenings" militiamen are drifting back to Al-Quaeda*. I have a very unpleasant suspicion that should Maliki form a government it won't be long before civil war could restart, but this time a more-or-less straight fight between Sunnis & Shias, since there'll be no US presence on the ground. 2006 redux, except with no prospect of Petraeus pulling a rabbit out of a hat, since the 'surge' will be happening in Kandahar and Helmand.
Anyone else remember the scenarios sketched out in the ending of Thomas Ricks' "Fiasco"?

*http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/world/middleeast/17awakening.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=world

@Ossola

You obviously haven't read any of the articles, read the articles you mention before you comment, authors don't control the headlines and standfirsts, see here

Here's what Alaaldin does in fact say:

But it is too easy to assume that they mark the beginning of the return to Iraq's violent past.

Allawi's coalition, it should be noted, contains fierce ultra-nationalists all too capable of igniting damaging and destructive violence, but there is a feeling that Iraq's political actors, some of them former insurgency members, have matured and given up their futile and costly ways of violence.

As a result of all this, a government is unlikely to be formed until August or perhaps even September, creating a vacuum that terrorists are all too happy to try to fill, and leaving the US with sufficient justification to alter its withdrawal plans.

In that last para I can see why you missed the "terrorists are happy to TRY to fill" line, your type just go for the headlines and leave before reading the actual article.

You on the other hand, state:

Ranj changed his mind again in August and decided that since the "widespread violence" that he had predicted would never happen was indeed widespread,

Where in the August article you refer to does the author mention "widespread" violence?

That's right, stick to the Sun mate.

"Did Iraqis opt for Maliki? It seems his block didn't win an outright majority and that Allawi got more seats. In this context, were the Kurds to side with Allawi and SCIRI to jump in bed, wouldn't it be fair to say that most Iraqis' representatives would have opted against Maliki?" - Celteberico
*
No party got even remotely close to an outright majority. Allawi's party got 2 more delegates than Malikis. But after months of deadlock Sadr's party opted to join the block behind Maliki which gave him enough votes to form a government. That is what I mean when I say that the Iraqis (or at least their elected parties) have opted for Maliki.

The fact that the US is now trying to change that outcome is what bodes ill. It's what we always do. We're all for democracy... except when the outcome isn't one we want. Then we try to change it.

Regarding the article you cited, I have been pointing this out for some time now (that the Sunni Awakening militias were being shafted by the Shia-dominated government and were starting to turn against the government). This too bodes ill, but was in fact entirely predictable. The Shia, who in a democracy will control the government, given that they make up 60 percent of the population, have no intention of letting the Sunni have a voice in the government. We may not like it, but trying to do what we're now doing will end up making a bad situation even worse. Before it was mostly Sunni Arab militias we had fighting us. Can you imagine how bad it can get if the Shia-controlled government turns on us?

We need to get the fuck out of that quagmire before it sucks us back in again.

Whitt:

No party got even remotely close to an outright majority. Allawi's party got 2 more delegates than Malikis. But after months of deadlock Sadr's party opted to join the block behind Maliki which gave him enough votes to form a government. That is what I mean when I say that the Iraqis (or at least their elected parties) have opted for Maliki.

The fact that the US is now trying to change that outcome is what bodes ill. It's what we always do. We're all for democracy... except when the outcome isn't one we want. Then we try to change it.

I see your point, but I'd still argue that as long as the horse-trading process goes on, until everything has been signed, sealed delivered by the putative coalition partners we can't talk about mandates - just as, in the UK, the Tories couldn't claim to have a mandate as long as the possibility of a Labour-Liberal coalition was still possible. To my mind, I'd have to say I'd prefer a broad coalition of Sunnis, Kurds & some Shias (or a National Government if possible) just because I think the possibility of civil war would thus be reduced (I'm sure PerMare will be along to berate us both & tell us that everything's rosy in the garden in Iraq).
Another possibility I wouldn't discount, especially given Iraq's history, is that of an attempted Sunni coup to forestall a pro-Iranian government in the event that such becomes a real prospect. Now that could get interesting, given that the police have the rep of being a Shia fiefdom, whilst the Awakenings militia are Sunnis (I think the Army is split between the 2 sects).

It is unrealistic to talk of the current situation without understanding that the 'election' was an extremely corrupt exercise in which both Allawi (not a US ally but a CIA 'asset') and Maliki had enormous advantages.

Essentially those openly opposed to the US occupation have been either imprisoned, killed, exiled or silenced. Even Sadr, who has an enormous base, is forced to live in exile because he is on a US list of people to be killed.

The elections told us something but they, by no means show trhe actual state of opinion. A free election would almost certainly lead to a large majority of anti-occupation Arab MPs. Certainly the Sunni areas would not be returning stooges like Allawi, who presided over the butchery of Fallujah.

The truth is that the kingmaker in Iraq is neither Arab, Kurdish nor Persian but American.

What the US decides to do depends largely on whether it wants war with Iran or not. If it is going to attack Iran it will not much care what noises emanate from the talking shop in Baghdad

Otherwise it will install a puppet to complete the set with Egypt Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and the various slavemarket emirates on the Gulf.

Rumour has it that the best seller in suqs from Morocco to Aden is the Arabic translation of The Military Memoirs of General Giap.

ellis:

A free election would almost certainly lead to a large majority of anti-occupation Arab MPs. Certainly the Sunni areas would not be returning stooges like Allawi, who presided over the butchery of Fallujah.

Well, let's say for argument's sake you're right, and say that the US forces left, their tail between their legs. We would still have a violent opposition to Iran amongst Sunnis, strong pro-Iranian sentiment amongst Shias, and separatist sentiment amongst Kurds. Which would still be a pretty damn good recipe for civil war, no? Have you read "Fiasco"?

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

"I see your point, but I'd still argue that as long as the horse-trading process goes on, until everything has been signed, sealed delivered by the putative coalition partners we can't talk about mandates - just as, in the UK, the Tories couldn't claim to have a mandate as long as the possibility of a Labour-Liberal coalition was still possible." - Celtiberico
*
Well, first of all, I don't think the word "mandate" is really applicable to the situation in Iraq, given how divided the various numerous factions are. It is instead merely a question of forming a coalition with enough votes to form a government. Maliki and his coalition have, with the support of Sadr's party, done that. It would require the defection of one of his coalition partners to undo it.

Secondly and far more importantly, the US should not be seen to be interfering in the formation of the Iraqi government, no matter how much we may not like the outcome. We have to accept that we're never going to see the kind of secular, Western-style democracy that the neocons were telling us would immediately flower in Iraq. Whether we like it or not, it's their country to fix or muck up as they choose.
*
*
"To my mind, I'd have to say I'd prefer a broad coalition of Sunnis, Kurds & some Shias (or a National Government if possible) just because I think the possibility of civil war would thus be reduced (I'm sure PerMare will be along to berate us both & tell us that everything's rosy in the garden in Iraq)."
*
Uh, to your mind? What part of "It's not your country" are you failing to grasp?

People in hell would like ice water but that doesn't mean they're going to get it. I would like to see something resembling a responsible pro-active government here in the US rather than the dysfunctional ideologue-ridden set of squabblers we've currently got in place, but I don't think I'm likely to see it, not in the near future anyway. To paraphrase that idiot Rumsfeld, you have to go with the government you've got, not the government you wish you had.
*
*
"Another possibility I wouldn't discount, especially given Iraq's history, is that of an attempted Sunni coup to forestall a pro-Iranian government in the event that such becomes a real prospect. Now that could get interesting, given that the police have the rep of being a Shia fiefdom, whilst the Awakenings militia are Sunnis (I think the Army is split between the 2 sects)."
*
Uh, not bloody likely. First of all, the Sunni Arabs are in no position whatsoever to mount a coup. They don't control the army anymore, or the police. Secondly, in case you haven't noticed, the current government is already pro-Iranian, which is one of the reasons why Iran was the first nation besides the US to recognize that government. Thirdly, the army and the police are both overwhelmingly Shia Arab. The government was supposed to incorporate the Sunni Awakening militias into the army, but only a very small number were actually integrated. Which is part of the reason the Sunni militias are so angry (that and not being paid, above all). And last but not least, the Kurds would be very much against any attempt by the Sunni Arabs at a coup as they well remember what it was like the last time the Sunni Arabs were in control. For them, it's actually better to have the Sunni and Shia Arabs divided against each other with a weak government in Baghdad.

Letsevolve

I don't understand why the Kurds would trust the Americans

Not only they shouldn't trust the Americans & their allies they shouldn't trust the Sunni Arabs in the region. After all it was all of these countires who supplied gas and arms to Saddam to gas, crush and kill them in their 1000s; and who was there to help, shelter and feed them when they were running for their lives in their10000s into Iraanian borders? IRAN as always. Many members of my own family have been there and have been through many deportations, many devastations, pain and loss I can tell you Iran has always been there for the Kurds no matter which one of the neighboring countries they come from.

Despite the Shiaa- Sunni division created by others, Iran and the Iraqi Kurds will find ways to get along.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

Aliboy

It is Iran that is the kingmaker, not the Kurds.

Sure, both in Iraq & Afghanistan and that must be upsetting the usual fear/war mongers and s*it stirrers in the region

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/18/iran-iraq-maliki-ahmadinejad-sadr

and Afghanistan:"Iran joins US for meeting about Afghanistan Iran took part in a high-level meeting on Afghanistan on Monday after the United States said it has no problem with its participation".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8072089/Iran-joins-US-for-meeting-about-Afghanistan.html

Getting in bed with the Israeli's is likely to prove a disastrous move in the long term

One of their biggest and devastating mistakes; but I guess it was out of choice to keep their "distant unlce" happy and satisfied and above all the $$ pouring in.

Ossola, Ranj as a contributor has no control on comments whatsoever. if posters report personal abuse/offensive comments the moderators remove the post, as simple as that. CIF contributors do not have access or power to delete/add comments; try to re-post without offending anyone and your post hopefully should stay.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

Ossola

The man obviously doesn't have a clue what is really going on in his country. Discussing the content of Ranj's wild meanderings is a waste of time

He is a wishful thinker, but as a Kurd from all sides, I don't blame him as for sure both Shiaa and Sunni Iraqi Kurds have suffered badly in the hands of the last Iraqi dictator in past 40-50 years. We can only have hopes and dreams, if only the merciless opportunists could leave our lands without grabbing any to attack Iran and could leave us alone to get on with it.

He is a wishful thinker, but as a Kurd from all sides, I don't blame him as for sure both Shiaa and Sunni Iraqi Kurds have suffered badly in the hands of the last Iraqi dictator in past 40-50 years.

And of course Kurdish actions had nothing to do with Hussein's actions, did they?

If you try to remove people from their homes, overthrow the government by force join sides with the enemy during a war then you can't really expect to be treated too well,can you?

Anyway the Americans have done exactly what the Kurds want. Like this the Americans can't be seen to be taking sides with anti- democraticaly-elected-government forces.

preemtiveresponse

And of course Kurdish actions had nothing to do with Hussein's actions, did they?

The Shiaa Kurd’s only fault was that they were Shiaa; and 99% of them were Iranian Shiaa-Faylie Kurds from Ilam and Kermanshah province (Not the Iran Kurdistan province where majority are Sunni) who crossed the Marivan/Khosrawi Mountains to look for work during 40s-50s but the price they paid was too heavy, I would say devastating. Some have returned after being so savagely deported (some in 68 thanks to the creation of Israel and the Arab-Israeli war when the Shah was supporting Israel and 1000000s after the Iranian revolution in 1979 when Saddam and his backers so a good opportunity to grab some Iranian land). Sadly some of the ones who returned to Iraq after the fall of Saddam have either been killed or displaced (AGAIN)

I hope CIF could do an article about the plight of the Feyli Kurds who are still suffering in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq no matter who runs Iraq
Get to know the Feyli Kurds! I bet no one on CIF has ever heard about themhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feylis

Whatever their origins, the fact is that Hussein did not use violence against Kurds for who they were but for what they did.

Preemtiveresponse, I have to disagree with you here on cif (for once!!) What did the Halabja Kurds who were gased by Saddam do to deserve this: not for the light heartedhttp://complextopics.blogspot.com/2008/05/iraq-war.html

It is the same with the Feyli Kurds who were accused of spying (reminds me of the unfortunate Iraqi Jews who were hanged in Baghdad Sq in the 60s apparently for spying for Israel); it is easy for all dictators to justify their crimes and cruelty by labeling people as spies in order to get away with their crimes, I know for sure my own illiterate distant aunts and uncles were not spies for anyone let alone committing a crime for the devastations they suffered.

Mr Alaaldin really needs to be a bit more open about his beliefs and allegiances. There is absoloutely nothing wrong with attempting to further a political cause you believe in, but to portray yourself whilst doing so as an objective academic observer is a little disingenous.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

So the interests of Iraqis will be ignored just like under the old regime in order to balance Iranian/Syrian demands with US policy in the Middle East? Nice to see nothings changed.

The usual suspects seem to be very upset by the self evident democracy in action.

Here is an ethnically divided country with no clear majority struggling to find a political settlement to keep the country together, a strong majority wish of the people. It has taken many months and still no slution is in sight

Iraq?

No, Belgium.

Unlike Belgium, Iraq also has 30 years of brutal dictatorship and politcal repression and vast mountains of old scores and enmities the result of real acts of violence and bereavement.

Iraq also has a powerful hate narrative to overcome, the ignorant lies about stealing their oil, installing puppet govts and colonialism. This filthy pile of retarded lies is the fuel, along with the direct involvement of Iran and AQ, for the insurgency that has claimed so many lives.

Yet the Iraqi elected politicians can see the prize. The reality, as opposed to the hatemongering retards lies, is that Iraq has contracted mainly Chinese oil companies to deliver a wall of money, 10,000 US additional income (at $70 a bbl oil price) for every single man woman and child in Iraq. The oil companies will be paid 4 billion a year fixed fee to deliver this 300 billion in new revenue.

Whoever forms this gov. will have four years of rapidly rising income.

It is an attractive proposition, whoever wins will be seen as delivering the wealth, even though it was Maliki's govt that negotiated these rather spectacularly good contracts. Still, thee is always risk. The problem with Service Contracts as opposed to Production Sharing Contracts is that the contractors provide service to the Iraqi state oil company client. The management is down to the same failed Iraq state organisation. Let us hope they manage well. Or if you are one of the usual suspects, you will hope not so that failure may justify your actions in Iraqi suffering.

Whitt:

Uh, to your mind? What part of "It's not your country" are you failing to grasp?

Just venturing an opinion, Whitt. It's called "Comment if Free" because one is allowed to make comments freely, see? I have at various times expressed my opinion of governments I'd like to see in countries such as the US, Iran, Britain, Israel, Australia, Italy, Serbia, Poland, France and Brazil. It doesn't mean I'm planning to invade them or tell them they've got to vote again if they get it 'wrong' (I'll leave that to your government). Hell, I even defended your countrymen's right to elect Bush in 2004, even though I have a very low opinion of those of them who did so.
No, all I'm saying in this case is that Iraq is in danger of civil war - one which could turn out very bloody and drag in neighbouring countries, and that a government composed chiefly of Shia parties would seem to me to make that civil war more likely, just as a government in Northern Ireland made up exclusively of nationalists (were such an arrangement possible say, a decade hence) would run the risk of triggering a Unionist backlash. Equally, a putative Bosnian government excluding all Muslims from power would not be the best recipe for Balkan stability. And I don't know about you, but I'd rather not see civil war, myself - such affairs may start off civil, but they tend to become uncivil to the point of being downright rude...

preemptiveresponse:

And of course Kurdish actions had nothing to do with Hussein's actions, did they?

If you try to remove people from their homes, overthrow the government by force join sides with the enemy during a war then you can't really expect to be treated too well,can you?

What a charmingly compassionate person you are. So the Kurds deserved to be gassed for fighting against Saddam, eh? By that logic, I suppose the Kashmiris have no cause to complain, since they're the ones rebelling against the Government, and the Palestinians had it coming at Sabra & Chatilla for having fought against the Phalangist government, and King Hussein's actions in Black September were perfectly understandable, and the Algerians massacred by the French paras were reaping what they had sown...

"Just venturing an opinion, Whitt. It's called "Comment if Free" because one is allowed to make comments freely, see? I have at various times expressed my opinion of governments I'd like to see in countries such as the US, Iran, Britain, Israel, Australia, Italy, Serbia, Poland, France and Brazil. It doesn't mean I'm planning to invade them or tell them they've got to vote again if they get it 'wrong' (I'll leave that to your government). Hell, I even defended your countrymen's right to elect Bush in 2004, even though I have a very low opinion of those of them who did so." - Celtiberico
*
Perhaps it's because I'm in the US that I'm sensitive to other people saying what they'd like to see in some other country's government. Because all too often we end up trying to turn those wishes into reality, completely ignoring the fact that it's not our country or government to meddle with. So anytime I hear such sentiments expressed, I feel a warning shudder run up my spine.
*
*
"No, all I'm saying in this case is that Iraq is in danger of civil war - one which could turn out very bloody and drag in neighbouring countries, and that a government composed chiefly of Shia parties would seem to me to make that civil war more likely, just as a government in Northern Ireland made up exclusively of nationalists (were such an arrangement possible say, a decade hence) would run the risk of triggering a Unionist backlash. Equally, a putative Bosnian government excluding all Muslims from power would not be the best recipe for Balkan stability. And I don't know about you, but I'd rather not see civil war, myself - such affairs may start off civil, but they tend to become uncivil to the point of being downright rude..."
*
Yes, Iraq is in danger of civil war and has been ever since we invaded. But that is something they're going to have to work out for themselves. The worst thing that we can do is to be seen as trying to manipulate the outcome of the elections. The only hope any government in Iraq has is if it's seen to be legitimate, and any hint of US interference or manipulation automatically renders the resulting government illegitimate. Mind you, it's not the only factor that can render a government illegitimate. The wholesale electoral fraud that has taken place in Afghanistan comes to mind in their recent elections comes to mind.

Yes, I would hope that the Iraqi parties would act in such a way as to form some kind of equitable government so that no major factions would feel disenfranchised or alienated, but if for whatever reason they either won't or can't, then civil war may in fact be necessary. As Clausewitz famously said, war is merely the continuation of politics by other means.

WannaTellYouAStory

This filthy pile of retarded lies is the fuel, along with the direct involvement of Iran and AQ, for the insurgency that has claimed so many lives.

We've been here before. Funny you mention one set of supposed lies and not the other. Remind me again what was the excuse for the invasion? That's right, LIES. But you have quickly moved away from the real cause of this mayhem. Also, oil doesn't bring the death back and I wouldn't give a single finger of any of my family or friends for wealth in oil, specially when it's being handled by no other than the warlords that are part of this bloody mess.

Or if you are one of the usual suspects, you will hope not so that failure may justify your actions in Iraqi suffering.

May that be that failure is what we're seeing both politically and internally and you just don't like to accept that? I really wish Iraq would stop being the place it is right now, but denying it isn't enough. So stop playing the "you want it to fail" card. You don't have a crystal ball on the hearts and minds of people so stop pretending you know how I, and many others against this horrible invasion, feel and think.

Iraq?

No, Belgium.

A stable European country politically divided is your example of democracy at work in unstable Iraq. Now I get you.

Iraq is in danger of civil war and has been ever since we invaded. But that is something they're going to have to work out for themselves. The worst thing that we can do is to be seen as trying to manipulate the outcome of the elections. The only hope any government in Iraq has is if it's seen to be legitimate, and any hint of US interference or manipulation automatically renders the resulting government illegitimate. Mind you, it's not the only factor that can render a government illegitimate. The wholesale electoral fraud that has taken place in Afghanistan comes to mind in their recent elections comes to mind.

Yes, I would hope that the Iraqi parties would act in such a way as to form some kind of equitable government so that no major factions would feel disenfranchised or alienated, but if for whatever reason they either won't or can't, then civil war may in fact be necessary. As Clausewitz famously said, war is merely the continuation of politics by other means.

But there are cases where outside interference are in fact beneficial - Clinton is worshipped in Ireland precisely because he is seen as having used US power and influence to help bring a settlement about. US pressure was also needed to broker peace in the Balkans in the 90s (can you imagine what would have happened to the Bosniaks if the British & French had had their way? They might have ended up like Rwandan Tutsis). Equally, Vietnamese intervention saved Cambodia from the hell of the Khmer Rouge. And it is hard to imagine German or Japanese politics after WWII being improved by the Allies saying "Well, lads, it's down to you to sort it out. Nothing to do with us."
Intervening in a country's internal politics is certainly no panacea, but neither is it necessarily evil and to be denounced. Maybe the Iraqis will avoid civil war by themselves, maybe a Shia majority is just something that Iraqis have to get used to, but I'm far from optimistic, given the country's history. Far more likely to my mind is that electoral horsetrading resulting in a Shia government with a sectarian agenda will be seen in retrospect as a moment at which Civil War became inevitable. And all we need then is some spark to set things off, such as the shooting of Calvo Sotelo did for the Spanish Civil War, or the assassination of Sir Henry Wilson which kicked off our own Civil War in Ireland.

mountgomery,

Yes we have been here before. I think you (or a.n.other useful idiot) had just claimed that in fact the evil USA had tried to steal Iraq's oil just as you have been incessantly screaming (and incting false grivance, extremism and suffering) and had been thwarted only by plucky Iraqis who defeated the Production Sharing Contracts law..

A more delusional or ignorant story is hard to imagine.

The USA spent its blood and treasure defending Iraqis as they negotiated a constitution, voted it in, elected a parliament then debated for years the oil law, a debate that still continues. When this Iraqi parliament voted out the PSA's the USA were beholden to it, THEY DEFENDED IT TO ALLOW IT TO MAKEW ITS OWN SOPVEREIGN DECISIONS.

What more proof of sovereignty do you want than that?

And PSA's, had they been auctioned as well as free Iraqis ran the Service Contract auctions, would likely have returned as much or more return for the Iraqi state (although additional profits for oil copmpanies would be the unaccepotable result for your average retard who would make tgyhe world starve to deny such a "crime")

I used Belgium to show how sickening your proclamation of Iraq as a failure is.

Disgusting. Still, you have travelled so far on this have you not, it is probably too late for you ever to change, even if you want to eh?

Never mind, despite you, in spite of you, Iraqis ARE free. The article describes this fredom in action. How it chokes and grates for you does it not.

WannaTellYouAStory

Yes we have been here before. I think you (or a.n.other useful idiot) had just claimed that in fact the evil USA had tried to steal Iraq's oil just as you have been incessantly screaming

Before calling anyone else a "useful idiot" you should make sure you know what you're talking about. Please show me where and when have I ever said that this was about "stealing Iraq's oil". You can't, can you.

You just love to answer anybody the same way always, and that's why all your posts say the same thing. Even in this article there's no mention of oil and yet you jumped right out with your favorite line.

What more proof of sovereignty do you want than that?

How about not being occupied by a foreign army for starters.

I used Belgium to show how sickening your proclamation of Iraq as a failure is.

So I guess Belgium is the most dangerous country in the world, even for journalists. I guess Belgium is occupied by a foreign army that filters a lot of the information that gets out of it. Belgium must have one of the worst sewage systems in the world, along with decaying hospitals and schools. I guess Belgium is also being ruled by warlords from the comfort of a Green Zone. Yeah, I can see where you're coming from now. Very relevant indeed.

Still, you have travelled so far on this have you not, it is probably too late for you ever to change, even if you want to eh?

I didn't have to travel far to see Iraqi refugees coming asking desperately for help at Acnur. How about you? Have you seen any, you world traveler you?

Never mind, despite you, in spite of you, Iraqis ARE free.

Free to go back to Iraq without danger? no. Free to choose any candidate to run for government? no. Free to be women as they like? no. Free to move around cities without having some beast released by the invasion bomb you? no. Free to film inside the cities at will? no. Free for reporters to report on anything they want? no. excuse me, but what is the meaning of freedom on your dictionary? free for rulers to do the oil deals?

As for the "it had nothing to do with oil" bullshit, have a look at a real assessment from the Center for Strategic and International Studies:

The Energy Information Agency (EIA) of the Department of Energy projects that a stable Iraq will increase its petroleum production from 2.5 million barrels per day (MMBD) in 2010 to 2.9 MMBD in 2015 and 5.0 MMBD in 2030 in its reference case projections – projections far more conservative than many made by Iraq and various oil companies. It also projects that Iraqi output could be as high as 6.7 MM BD by 2030. Helping Iraq become a far larger oil producer and exporter will limit world oil prices and reduce the cost of US energy imports. More broadly, it will help ensure the stability of a global economy that is increasingly critical to US economic growth and prosperity. US policy towards Iraq must also be honest about future US dependence on energy imports. It is easy to talk about US energy independence: every Administration since the Ford Administration has come to office talking about reducing dependence on imports. The Obama Administration is no exception, but forecasts of its efforts – and of Congressional efforts to date -- do not promise more success than the efforts of its predecessors. Certainly, the Department of Energy’s forecasts leave the US heavily dependent on direct petroleum imports through 2030 – the furthest date any credible projections can be made. Even in the most favorable case, the US will still be critically dependent on direct petroleum imports through 2030. Moreover, the assumptions in the EIA estimates do not reflect two critical aspects of world US import dependence. First, the US makes major indirect imports of petroleum in the form of heavy manufactured goods that are made using petroleum imported from the Gulf. Second, the health and strength of the US economy is becoming steadily more dependent on the health and strength of a global economy where many key trading partners are projected to remain far more dependent on oil imports than the US.

I repeat, I don't believe the invasion was solely about oil, but who's the useful idiot that believes this was more than just a geo-political move by a corrupt US government who didn't give a damn on teh consequences for the normal every day Iraqi civilian?

mountgomery,

Yes, the US may have acted in Iraq to remove a hideous dictator and not elsewhere because the vast oil reserves of Iraq made it a strategically important place as it combined a lunatic ruler with vast wealth.

This is far from your story, and the common receoived wisdom of what happened in Iraq. That story says the evil USA invaded and occupierd Iraq to enslave it under a puppet govt (this is actually repeated above) and steal/control its oil.

This is the story that the 7-7 bombers quoted in their suicide videos before murdering all those innocent people.

This is the "everyone knows it is true" story that extremists start from before they make the short hop to terrorist murderers.

This is your story. And today, seeing it to be utter, total, 100% hateful ignorant rubbish and seeing bther carnage wrought in its name, you still cannot bring yourself to say....

"yes, the story that the USA went to Iraq to steal or control its oil was a lie"

And that is why I think so little of you. The USa went to Iraq to remove an appalling dictator and set Iraqi's politically free. Who would have died to oppose that story? They died for a lie, your lie about oil theft and imperialism.

WannaTellYouAStory

yes, the story that the USA went to Iraq to steal or control its oil was a lie

I'm not completely convinced that one of the intentions was not to control the oil. The article I quoted seems a good reason enough to do this. I don't think the US is the only country thinking about its long term needs and oil is one of them. Perhaps you could say it wasn't the main objective, but it's a matter of opinion whether you think the US wants to control Iraq's oil or not. Neither you nor I can dispute either just yet. I just don't think it justifies the carnage that ensued. A carnage that has nothign to do with my opinion and more to do with US negligence and carelessness at the time of the invasion.

the US may have acted in Iraq to remove a hideous dictator and not elsewhere because the vast oil reserves of Iraq made it a strategically important place as it combined a lunatic ruler with vast wealth

Again I ask you, then why was he supported when he was at his most brutal. WHY? Please explain that to me without retorting to lies about the Iraq-Iran war. Either you think he's brutal and shouldn't be supported or you take support away from someone when he's not convenient for you anymore. So which is it?

The USa went to Iraq to remove an appalling dictator and set Iraqi's politically free.

That's strange. I thought it was about WMDs. Maybe you have other sources of information. Care to share them please?