Iraq elections in 3 weeks.... - Page 2

Ok, time for simplification. This is how I see it - you just tell me the bits you disagree with. That is to say: if you disagree, tell me where and why - it's called debate. It's fun. Ok:

Syria is Ba'athist secular - predominantly Marxist in the old guard but Asad himself being Alawite Sunni in terms of lineage.

Iran is Shi'i.

Let's assume we can agree they won't be co-operating or supporting the same groups, if support there be (I hope we can agree on that or there's REALLY no point).

Any support from Syria will not be at governmental level but will only be from sympathisers with the insurgents. These are few, mainly because they are imprisoned, tortured and killed when found but some exist, I grant you.

So, these are at risk of detection from the US, Iraqis and Syria. If they are interfering it will be to promote Sunni Jihadi groups. But there are few of these.

Obl and Zarqawi cells are active (let's say for arguments sake) but these are Wahabi (ie Saudi) and will not be supported by the Syrian groups if they exist. In fact I can think of only one Syrian group - the Muslim Brotherhood, and that is all but extinct there.

The question of Syria as a 'safe haven' for non-Syrian insurgent cells is a different one and imo highly unlikely - for the simple reason that Asad knows he is next on Bush's hitlist and will not give the US the slightest pretext to invade. He will find these groups in a second and destroy them. Unless you think he is stupid in which case the debate stops there.

Iran: Sistani already has the Shi'i vote wrapped up. He also has the US on side, for now. There's nowhere else to go. Why would Iran interfere ? He will win hands down - even if the Sunnis vote. Which they won't.

So, why would Iran risk interfering in a vote that a Shi'i cleric is a dead cert for ? And how would they 'interfere' ?

Arming cells ? Funding insurgents ? Problems here - Sistani is working with the US to root out the insurgents - it is solely down to him that the Shi'i have not risen against the US. They may want to but he says no. The only person who ever disobeyed that fatwa was as-Sadr and Sistani sorted him out when the US couldn't.

Sistani has too much power for anyone to be successful at a rebellion if he doesn't want it. Iran know that. He has too much power for them even, he it THE major Shi'i figure and he disagrees in part with Iranian clerics.

So, what you say is not true. It could easily become true - I believe it will when the elections fail and if subsequently Sistani takes the reins off his followers. But it isn't true now.

Well, I will try and dig out some objective links for you. Not easy to find but Juan Cole is probably the best- although I do not personally find him radical enough his knowledge of the ME region and Shi'ism in particular is second to none. I guess he's the leading academic in that field right now.

He says some interesting things about Sistani today btw.

Also I forgot to add in the previous post that another problem is that PM Alawi was chosen by the Americans and is viewed as a stooge. The US choosing him in itself is not so much a problem but the fact that he is an ex-Saddam henchman (who DOES have blood on his hands and everybody knows it) and a Ba'athist is.

This was a golden opportunity for the US. Imo they lost it right there. If they'd come up with a popular candidate - one who was non-Ba'ath, and a religious moderate, then things would have been very different. Why did they do it ? Was it just that there was no-one else ?

Anyway, some will vote for him (Saddam supporters) but many, many more will vote against as a statement, and of course violent tensions will arise between these groups.

I don't think our positions are that different in reality. We both despise Saddam , the Taleban and the Saudis et al, though probably for vastly different reasons. It isn't even really a question of the method of dealing with it that we disagree on but more the root causes.

I'm just arguing the nuances, on the bigger picture we'd probably agree more than you think.