The deplorable never-ending Iraqi governmental stalemate is about to enter its sixth month and no resolution seems to be in sight. Given that "spreading 'democracy'" is now the current zeitgeistian justification for Iraqi war proponents, the ongoing deadlock seems to be yet another sign that the establishment of a stable democratic government in Iraq is not in the immediately foreseeable future. Normally, the internecine negotiations and sausage-making details about how foreign governments are put together are not crucial items about which Americans are concerned, especially given all the scandals and the ongoing efforts of the hate-filled and stunningly corrupt Republicans to felonize everyone's abuelita, but in the case of Iraq, where we have heroic soldiers dying every day (two more yesterday), it takes on added importance. And the situation is both delicate and complex; requiring a deft diplomatic hand, something for which the blunderbuss lying warmongering Bushies are not generally known. [For more, I double-dog dare you to read after the break].
As I diaried previously, the principal contenders are Interim Prime Minister Ibrahim al Jaafari and Adel Abdel Mahdi, both members of the United Iraqi Alliance, which is the largest bloc in the new parliament, with a little more than 1/2 of the seats. Under the new Constitution, it takes 67% of the assembly to initially form a government. Al Jaafari, at present, is the prime minister designee, but due to united opposition from Kurdish (20%), Sunni (10%) and secular Shiites and other minor parties, it does not appear as though he could achieve a 2/3rd's supermajority if an upperdown vote were held in the assembly. But no vote can be held unless the parliament is convened, which is in the hands of al Jaafari. As previously diaried, the U.S. and U.K. have been lobbying/pressuring al Jaafari to voluntarily step down for various reasons. On the other hand, Iran is similarly pressuring al Jaafari to stand firm and not yield to American pressure.
Adel Abdel Mahdi was "expected" to emerge as the prime minister designee when the United Iraqi Alliance met for a leadership vote several weeks ago. But he lost by one vote amidst various charges, including that numerous elected delegates of the Badr faction were in close contact with the Iranian charge d'affairs, Hassan Kasemi Ghomi, who then strategically switched/withheld just enough votes for al Jaafari to prevail and that, in particular, six of the deputies who switched their votes, are employed/paid by the Iranian intelligence service. Those six are: (1) Abu Mukhtabi Sari, the former head of the Iraqi Hezbollah; (2) Abu Hassan al-Ameri, the head of al-Badr, the former Shiite militia linked to SCIRI; (3) Abu Mahdi al Mohandes and (4) Tajah Alwan, both al-Badr officials; (5) Dager Mussawi, leader of the foundation of the Martyrs; and (6) Tahsan Aboudi, a high offical in the interior ministry.
So it would appear that there is an American-backed candidate/faction (Mahdi) and an Iranian-backed candidate/faction (al Jaafari). And if Mahdi is not acceptable, then there are several alternative candidates, including Abdolaziz Hakim. According to Ali Reza Nourizadeh, a journalist for the pan-Arab daily al-Sharq al-Awsat, Mahdi and Hakim "don't not want in any circumstance to offend the Americans" while others, such as al Jaafari, have an umbilical tie to Iran." According to Nourizadeh, SCIRI is at a crossroads - some are trending American; some Iranian.
But this analysis is perhaps a bit simplistic; Mahdi has his own Iranian ties. In the interim government, he is currently serving as foreign minister, but prior to that, he was the political representative of Ayatollah Muhammed Bakr al Hakim, who was one of the spiritual leaders of the Iraqi Governing Council, who, of course, lived in Iran during the worst years of Saddam Hussein's reign.
So is Mahdi the horse that America should bet on?? Is he the answer to Cindy Sheehan's question of what noble cause the Iraqi adventure was for?? Is he the Iraqi strongman that we are going to rely upon for the next four years?? Is Mahdi the nationalistic leader; akin to Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh?? Can he keep the country together?? Can he or would his appointment achieve American objectives??
If Mahdi (or someone else) is to replace al Jaafari, we should bear in mind that such a replacement prime minister designee would not be the legitimate democratically elected leader of the parliament, absent concurrence from the Jaafari half of the UIA. The Kurdish representatives, under current interim President Talabani, have asked that faction to name an alternative nominee, but Jaafari has only been defiant, stating that "the people would be upset" if their democratically-expressed preference were not to be upheld.
If Mahdi (or another candidate) is selected and al Jaafari is forced to step down, what will be the likely result?? Would he be able to control the militias?? According to one Iraqi blogger, the government is running a scroll on their televisions saying not to trust any police or security force faction that is not accompanied by Americans; thereby confirming the lawless nature of gang warfare that unfettered militias are wreaking on the streets of Baghdad (and elsewhere). Isn't it more likely that Mahdi will not be able to control the militias, especially if he is viewed as being an American toady/puppet??
What should the American position be??
My suggestion, which almost surely won't be followed is to emulate the 2+4 process whereby West and East Germany were unified. That is, the talks that are currently underway should be joined by both American and Iranian delegates (and delegates from other Mideast countries). That way, everything would be out in the open - the Americans and Iranians could talk directly about concerns for the future of Iraq. We could have open, honest agreements, openly arrived at. Which, by the way, was a principle of Wilsonian idealism, whose rhetoric the lying smearing Bushies emulate, but whose policies, practices and procedures, they ignore.
Isn't it the most hypocritical position in the entire history of humankind for the Bushies to say that they are spreading democracy but in fact are attempting to subvert the leadership of the democratically elected leadership??
All comments and thoughts welcome!