Should Bush be Scared of Iraq’s Sistani?

Dear M. Ghori!

I think that statements by Mulla Sistani and demonstrations by his supporters are a show of strength and tactics to negotiate a deal with the US.

As you know, the Iraqi Governing Council has 25 members including Shia representitives. The main groups vying for power are Kurds (pro-independence for Kurds), Local Sunnis (trying to maintain the minority Sunni dominance from Sadam Era), Iraqis returned from West (props of CIA), Shias supporting Sistani (majority are from South and Basra region), Shias supporting Mulla Al Sadr (mainly supported by Baghdad Shias). These different groups have agendas of their own but everyone is trying to convince the Amercians that their group deserves the most importance.

There have been press reports that Sistani is the leading power broker via his prop Mulla Al Hakim in the Governing Council. I think that the recent demonstrations by Al Hakim supporters are just a pressure tactic to suggest that the power should be handed over to Al Hakim / Sistani.

However, for the Americans, it is very clear that a Shia power block next to Iran is extremely unstable for the region. So Americans have to work out a way to dilute the power of the Shias either through a rift between Mulla Sistani and Mulla Al Sadr (North South divide) or a Sunni Kurd Alliance against the Shias.

Democracy and similar buzz words are just gimmicks to satisfy the whims of CNN / FOX / CNBC reporters. On ground, the issue is how to hold Iraq togather so that it is a stable base for the Americans for next 50 years and how to create a government that allows foreign / American Oil firms to pump oil out of Iraq at attractive rates.

The history of the Middle East has been cursed ever since Americans discovered oil in this area in the 1900s. In countries where the governments allow a free ride to the foreign oil companies, the rulers have a long reign like the Shah of Iran or the Saudi Royals. In countries where the goverments try to push around foreign oil interests, the goverments are either thrown over like Iran`s Muhaamad Musaddaq or isolated via so called sanctions like Libya.

The bottom line is, Out of every 100$ pumped out, would the American firms be able to get 90% or 50%? And also who gets the contracts? Is it Yukos from Russia or Total from France or Exon-Mobil from the US? Which firms get the contracts is more important for the US than how much democracy is good for the Iraqis.

Guys like Sistani understand these issues quite well. Although they have street power, there are 150,000 Amercan soldiers on the groud and thats the real problem. Like the arrival of the East India Company in Indo-Pak, once these American troops have entered Iraq, it is going to take decades to move them out. The Americans have used the 911 scenario to make their best move in the Middle East in the last fifty years. Would there be another Kamal Attaturk or Mulla Khomenei in Iraq? That must be what worries the Americans at night.

Sistani looks more like trying to negotiate a better deal than taking a principled stand. The experiment at democracy is a very interesting event that the whole Middle East is watching. Although public expectations are for a robust German / Japanese style economic revival, the truth is - Iraq is about oil, and a representative government in Iraq will never allow Amercian forces on its soil or lucrative contracts to American firms.

laaton key bhoot baaton sey nahin maantay....all these sistanis and pisstanis act like they are the second coming. A swift foot in the ass would clear any misperception about America once and for all.

Ordinary_Muslim,

You`re out to lunch. If a relatively light insurgency by the minority Sunni population has hastened the American schedule in Iraq (they were talking about spending YEARS there shortly after the war ``ended``, not of pulling out by June of this year), then adding Shia`s to the mix will bode very, very bad for America - no, make that Bush and co.

There is a big difference between an established ruler repressing his population and a foreign army trying to occupy unfamiliar land - especially when ``nation building`` is a goal of the occupier.

If Sistani wants to shake things up, then America is indeed in for a huge headache. Never mind Saddam or his former army. Now, if you suggest that Bush do what Saddam would do did if Sistani dare rise in opposition...well...the statement will simply expose you Bush supporters for what you are - foolish brutes.

This has nothing to do with ``bashing`` America - a cowardly thing to invoke when valid arguments are made against Bushie and his pussycats.

why should that Evangelical son of a Bush be afraid of Sistani --

like his grandpa Reagan donated Iran to Ayatollah Khomeini -- and Afghanistan to Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden --

our Born-Again Bjr has Busted the Balls of the Baathists Bums -- snatched Iraq from the dirty hands -- of these Secular Satans -- and gifted it to the Holy men of Karbala.....with a copy of Holy Bible -- a Key to Madrasass -- and a 99 year lease on Iraqi oil.....

now don`t blame the Ayatollah Sistani if 20 years later -- some of the very same Ayotollah chickens again come home -- to roost on the roofs of another set of twin towers......

Ordinary_Muslim: Are you related to Bhartiya Mussulmaan who used to frequent Chowk a few years ago?

Anyways, your points are succinct and well made.

Nasah:

There were always more than 15,000 gora troops in India. Add on another zero to your figure and that is a much more accurate estimate. The East India Compay also had white regiments, not just sepoy ones. Indian Army personnel were probably in the range of 250,000 plus (not counting massive expansions during WWI and WWII).

In any case, even with 150,000 troops, ruling India was still a great feat for the Gora Saab. He was efficient!

re: #2 by Romair

++++
Wars have strange outcomes. Especially if they are fought on incorrect assumptions, with poorly defined exit strategies.
++++

The same can be said about the War against Taliban. The onslaught of daisy cutters and depleted uranium bombs helped Northern Alliance capture town after town. The liberated people rejoiced Taliban`s ouster.

But then two crucial mistakes were made. First, the Northern Alliance were allowed to enter Kabul in breach of the agreement made earlier. From that point onwards, the battle against Taliban became a Tajik/Hazara versus Pashtoon battle.

Despite the massive collateral damage of the War, people were still optimistic about the rebuilding effort. This is where the Americans made the second mistake. They shifted focus from Afghanistan to Iraq, without finishing the job first.

Now we have a peculiar situation in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Al-Qaeda elements have swarmed to both countries. Mullah Umar and Osama are still at large. The weak Karzai govt in Afghanistan and non-representative Iraqi Governing Council are facing attacks every day from Taliban and Al-Qaeda elements. A majority of population (Shia in Iraq; Pushtoons in Afghanistan) oppose American presence in their countries.

This volatile mix of religion, nationalism, ethnic polarization, poverty, armed resistance and suspicions about American commitment could even end up reversing all the gains America made during the last 2 years. IMHO, the only viable way out of this mess for America is to hold free & fair elections in both Afghanistan and Iran within 6 months... and hand over power to whoever wins.

``Only 150,000 troops are occupying a country of 25 million !!! That is some discipline !!``(malik)

I know the Iraqis ARE `disciplined`.............but we were even more disciplined than the Iraqis --

do you know many Tommies occupied -- India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Andaman, Nicobar, sri Lanka, Diego Garcia, Lakadive, Maldive -- 15,000.....now that takes real discipline.......

The Iraqi Governing Council and other representative `caucases`.

For those of you who are Fauji-Lovers please take note of your hypocracy. On the one hand you will blast the US government for trying to deny the people of Iraq genuine representative democracy, but then turn a blind eye to the antics of Pakistan Army who have already done EXACTLY what you are opposing the US from doing in Iraq.

From bribing and blackmailing the judiciary, to trying to prevent the most popular politicians from running in an election to trying to divide and rule the country to bringing in the filthiest politicians possible to run the country- the Faujis in Pakistan have done it all.

Is there much difference between the `Iraqi Governing Council` and the desire to have an `National Security Council` or even the PML (Q)?? Is there much difference between the proposed `caucases` in Iraq to the `local councils` created in Pakistan? Is there much difference between the devious attempts of Bush to control democracy and Musharaf`s consistent steps to control democracy?

Hardly.

Why are you so pained when the US does the same in Iraq?

PS) Though I didn`t support the action in Iraq, it`ll be interesting to see how the Saudi-wahabis react to Sistani`s obvious strength.

``(Bush) was catapulted into the White House, courtesy of his dad’s hand-picked judges of the U.S.Supreme Court?``

Of nine Supreme Court Justices, only two were nominated by George H. W. Bush:
1. Justice David H. Souter
2. Justice Clarence Thomas

Let`s look at the Nov 2000 Supreme Court ruling about whether to continue the case or end the litigation at once. Of the Justices who dissented from the majority that ruled in favour of Bush, two were appointed by Republicans.

Clearly, this is not a case of Republican appointed Justices reflexively deciding for the son of the person who appointed them.

---

``Bush’s most frightening nightmare is Sistani giving a call to his followers to rise in revolt against the dictatorial American occupation ...``

Sistani`s most frightening nightmare is the Americans making short work out of Sistani`s followers. They couldn`t fight Saddam`s half-hearted forces of draftees. How can they take on the US military? Anyways, the scenario is too far-fetched to contemplate; but not too unrealistic for the America bashers to speculate and dream about.


BOTTOMLINE:
The rantings of America bashers have little grounding in facts, logic, rationality or common sense. Their reflexive America bashing is based on a visceral hatred of the United States, not on fair minded analyses.

Furthermore, their perverted mindsets indicates a lack of understanding of the US. And that is a good thing for the Americans. It is easier to fight an adversary who is clueless about whom he is up against.

Cordially
O_M

sigalph235: ``Actually I am a fairly regular visitor to Topeka and yes there are many Topekans who know where Baghdad is and care for the liberation of people in Iraq.``

So you are suggesting that the USA invaded Iraq because people in Topeka were concerned about the liberation of Iraqis. That is funny. Did they develop this desire, in Topeka, to liberate Iraqis, just recently. Or have they wanted their liberation even when the US was allied with Iraq?

I chose the city Topeka to make my point, because I actually lived and worked in Kansas. You should have given me a call when you visited there, ``regularly.`` I could have shown you around.

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe, everyone in Kansas was dying to, ``liberate`` the Iraqis, and was having sleepless nights worried about the plight of the Iraqis, before the invasion. However, I never heard the word, ``Baghdad`` mentioned when I lived in Kansas. So I will stick by my theory.

What to talk of Topeka, I doubt most Americans could have pointed to Baghdad on a map, before CNN started covering it.

If the, ``liberation of Iraq`` argument had, ``feet,`` I am sure the neo-cons would have used it as a justificaition, before they used the WMD argument. Or before they used the Al-Qaeda argument. Or before they used the, ``threat to the rest of the world`` argument. I think the opinion groups they ran, must have showed that liberation of Iraq argument will rank lower than the WMD argument.

The sequence of arguments was as follows:

1. WMD (argument failed)
2. Iraq is threat to neighbors (neighbors did not agree)
3. Iraq is threat to rest of the world (rest of the world did not agree)
4. Must liberate Iraq for Iraqis (Iraqis seem to not be agreeing)

The ``liberate the people`` argument is the, ``final cry`` of any misguided invasion. It is the failsafe argument, i.e. we are doing it for the people of the country we are invading. We haven`t asked them, but we are just doing it, anways. This was the argument used by the Soviets when they invaded Afghanistan. Even though I doubt too many people in Siberia could point to Kabul on the map. And interestingly, more people opposed the invasion of Iraq by the USA, then the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR. Only the majority of the citizens of Israel and USA supported this war. All other 188 or so countries`s citizens opposed it. And now the Democratic party fully opposes it also.

So perhaps it is about time that all the apologists for the neo-con`s war accept the truth, and realize that they are out of arguments; instead of trying to justify one unjustifialbe argument after another. And they should accept that the USA is trying to get out of there now, as quickly as it can. To the point that it is contacting the same Kofi Annan, whom it completely wrote off, before the invasion.

Let`s hope the UN takes over. And it is actually the people of Iraq who benefit. As long as there are a couple of Sistanis around, I am sure they will be able to keep a check on the neo-cons.

Air Marshal
`. I doubt anyone in Topeka Kansas...`

Actually I am a fairly regular visitor to Topeka and yes there are many Topekans who know where Baghdad is and care for the liberation of people in Iraq.

The long and short of it is this: America wanted to invade and occupy iraq, and it did. As sick as it may sound, lets at least give applause to americans for following through on what they wanted. How many countries in the world today can walk into a strange land, uproot the long standing order, issue new currency, make their subjects USE that currency, conscript their subjects into a new army, change text books, set up elections (in which the subjects will willingly walk to the election booths to vote) etc etc. Only 150,000 troops are occupying a country of 25 million !!! That is some discipline !! I would venture to say, no country today can do this, or do it in less than a year as americans have.

On the other hand are we muslims. With fists raised, foam coming out of our mouths, eyes red with rage, we march into the streets swearing allegiance to muslims everywhere, swearing to take our diginity back, and then in the end setting a few buses on fire and going home for some warm meal and hot tea.

To quote one muslim scholar ``we muslims should be thankful to Allah that we are not the leaders of the world today. Can you imagine what we would have done to it if we were in-charge? ``

I think there were two major miscalculations made by Bush`s neo-con advisors, regarding the Iraqi invasion:

- They assumed the Europeans would be with the USA, as they have been traditionally
- They assumed Iraqis would welcome the Americans as liberators

Due to the fact that both of these have proven to be completely incorrect, now the Bush administration has had to ad-lib everything in Iraq, i.e. make policy and strategy as you go....

The Bush team obviously knew that there were no WMDs in Iraq. The CIA is not that stupid. A WMD program cannot be hidden away like a small gun. They had no issues with Saddam, when he was pro-USA. Nor has the USA ever been too concerned about the average Iraqi. I doubt anyone in Topeka Kansas or Des Moines, Iowa, one day got up and said, ``I feel so sad for the people of Baghdad. We should liberate them.`` I doubt he could point to Baghdad on the map.

So the plan must have been to invade Iraq. Install Chalabi. And then have all the allies pump some money into Iraq, and gain access to the oil fields, which were sitting idle for so long. However, the European, ``allies,`` due to the pressure of their populations, decided not to go along. Not only that, they have put the USA`s actions in Iraq, under an unprecendented microscope, ensuring that the USA actually does help the Iraqis.

And the Iraqis have played their cards smartly. They want both Saddam and the USA out of their country. They have not welcomed the Americans as liberators. Only as a smaller nuisance than Saddam.

Thus, Mr. Sistani has now become one of the most important persons in the world. He could literally bring down Bush`s Presidential bid, by, one fine morning, simply raising his arms and pointing the 100,000 marchers towards the US troops.

I assume he will not do that, as long as the USA goes along with him.

Who would have thought that the success of Bush`s campaign would be decided by an Irani born Ayatollah, trying to become the first Shia clerical ruler of Iraq, after decades. And who would have thought that he would owe his power to the USA - a country that hates Shia clerics, especially those who are born in Iran.

Wars have strange outcomes. Especially if they are fought on incorrect assumptions, with poorly defined exit strategies. This one went off the rails, when Bush deployed his troops in the Middle East, and the Europeans refused to support him. Had the troops not been deployed, pre-maturely, I doubt the USA would have invaded.

I had predicted a while back that the US invasion would eventually result in clerical rule in Iraq. I am not sure how the USA will get out of this one. A Shia democracy in Iran and a Shia democracy in Iraq. What if the maulvis take over in Saudi Arabia also? 40% of the world`s oil, under the control of maulvis, with populations which hate the USA (according to all polls).

Eventually, at some point, Americans will realize that Richard Pearle and Wolfowitz aren`t intelligent enough to play God. They are just normal people who have been given more power than anyone should have in this world.

Bush will win the next election, I think. Assuming, of course, that he stays on the good side of a man named Sistani.

Sistani will win his election, even if he does not stay on the good side of a man named Bush.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave.......

His Ambassadorial Excellency`s rush to judgement, as usual, disinclined him to checking the spelling of Paul BREMER`s name. It must have been the fault of the Jews and Hindus.