Iraq Election Endgame

What a strange election Iraq will hold this coming January 30--we already know who will win. While certainty about the victor in a democratic election might seem strange, without even the benefit of functional polls, one slate of candidates is endorsed by the undisputed spiritual leader of the 60 percent Shia majority, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistiani. He has already ordered his coreligionists to register and their participation is at 90 percent, according to government estimates, and this majority will unquestionably vote for his candidates.

What do we know about his slate? The list is headed by Abdul Azir Hakim and the largest number on the list are drawn from the followers of Moktada al-Sadir. The later is more familiar to Americans as the Shiite who led the summer insurrection against U.S. troops in Najaf and Sadir City but the former is even more important. Hakim is the clerical leader of the Iran-backed Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the largest political party in the election. Since he heads the consolidated Shiite ticket, he is guaranteed election and this close ally of Iran will most certainly hold a very high post in the new government. Needless to say, neither of these gentlemen is friendly to the United States and there are few allies on the rest of the ticket either.

Imagine that in 1980, as Iran was holding American diplomats hostage against all rights under international law, someone had asked at that time what was the worst outcome possible for that region over the coming years? Certainly, it would have been that Iran would consolidate its power within what was already the largest country in the region and then unify its fellow Shiites in the area to becoming the dominant power in the Middle East. After 1,300 American dead, 10,000 wounded and after spending $200 billion in Iraq, we are about to see that bad dream come true.

George W. Bush has long been calling for democracy in Iraq. Soon he might be reminded of the old saying about being careful what you wish for--you might get it, good and hard. Of course, he is aware of this and we have predicted he will attempt to follow through on his April 2004 statement that U.S. troops will begin disengagement after a second election in December 2005 creates the permanent government under a new constitution.

Neoconservative optimists insist that Iraqis would never freely merge with Iran. However, borders do not have to be formally adjusted for nations to work closely together. The Iranian intelligence service is already reported to be investing "millions of dollars and hundreds of operatives" into Iraq to influence the election and, according to Iraqi officials, to train assassins in case things go wrong. Hakim and Sadir both visit Iran regularly to receive financial support. Admittedly, the interim Iraqi defense minister was a former Baathist (as was the prime minister Ayad Allawi, although both later turned against Saddam Hussein) and of Sunni heritage and, therefore, not unbiased--but he claims that the Hakim slate simply is an "Iranian list" devised by those who want "turbaned clerics to rule" in Iraq.

Even moderates fear what will happen when their long subservient and historic enemies win majority control. The remaining Iraqi Christians are now being persecuted after 2,000 years in the area and are on the verge of a mass exodus. Talal Gaaod, a tribal Sunni leader from Ramadi, who according to reporter David Ignatius has previously cooperated with U.S. forces and was educated at the University of Southern California, now concludes: "Things are not improving but getting worse. I blame the United States for giving the clergy a front to lead events in Iraq. I am sure you will regret this one day. It will not work. One hundred years from now, it will not work." The Sunni 20 percent are already in rebellion in their "triangle" homeland, where the electoral board just resigned in fear, or intimidated by those who are assassinating any who work with the interim government or even try to vote. It is inconceivable that the revolt will not continue when their enemies take charge after the election.

In other words, civil war is inevitable, as we have been predicting since our visit to Iraq in late 2003, unless the Shia relent and make some sort of accommodation to the other communities. If the Shiites follow through on their promise, they will not even allow autonomy for the Kurdish 20 percent and will provoke the second largest group to separate themselves or even to join with the Sunnis against the larger threat. What will the U.S. do then? Will America really fight and place U.S. lives at risk to assist one faction against the others just because they were elected? How long? The Shia and Sunni have been at war for a millennium and a half. Can we see it through to the end? Would not native Iraqi forces be much more effective than a foreign occupier?

What happens to a Shiite Iraq surrounded by Sunni enemies, not only those in Iraq but in Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria (although Baathist), Egypt and the rest in the region? While it is true that Iran is mostly Persian and Iraq Shiites are Arab, Shiites threatened in the midst of a heretical Sunni sea will look for allies. If they do not partner with Iran, it would be miraculous. In any event, Hakim and his cross-border allies will be pushing things in that direction anyway. In any such pact, especially with Iraq functionally reduced to a Shiite fragment, Iran will be the dominant power with many times the population and wealth and, maybe, a nuclear bomb dangerously sited within a few miles of American troops.

At his last press conference, President Bush reiterated his commitment that "Iraq will be a democracy that reflects the values and traditions of its people" and that "the elections in January are just the beginning of the process" including a constitution and further elections in December for a permanent government. The original Pentagon estimate in April 2003 was that U.S. troops would be withdrawn by the end of 2004 and the president's previous White House news conference suggested a late 2005 or early 2006 exit. Yet, Grand Ayatollah Sustaini keeps reiterating, repeated by an aide again this week, every conversation with an American must end with, "When are you leaving?"

Can the U.S. stay through 2005 when the democratically elected government wants it out, especially when the President also admitted, "We do not have much leverage with the Iranians right now." Former Bush I national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft recently said he now believes the elections have "great potential to deepen the conflict" even into an "incipient civil war" and hawkish former Jimmy Carter security council head Zbigniew Brzezzinski predicted the most optimistic outcome of the election will be a Shiite theocracy rather than "what we would normally call a democracy."

Leverage with fellow Americans is eroding too. U.S. forces suffered their largest number of casualties since the initial invasion just before Christmas when 14 soldiers, 4 American contractors and 3 Iraqi security troops were killed and 60 wounded and January is estimated to be even worse. A Washington Post/ABC News poll a week earlier had found that Americans then said, thinking of the benefits and costs of the war, U.S. military involvement was not worth the cost. While 58% say they will stick with the president until order is restored and 60% want the elections held on schedule, 57% now say they disapprove how Mr. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq. Probably as a result of this, the president's overall job approval has declined to 48% against 49% who disapprove. By contrast Bill Clinton was approved by 60% as he began his new term in 1996.

It is critical that President Bush has persevered with holding the election but it is difficult to see how the U.S. can stay in Iraq until it becomes democratic in any meaningful sense of the term or even until after the second Iraqi election. If Republicans face the voters in 2006 with the present rate of casualties, they will threaten their Congressional majority. Better to declare democratic victory after the January election and begin withdrawing American troops, while offering support from the sidelines. It will much easier than leaving during the civil war, perhaps involving a nuclear Iran.

Donald Devine, Editor.

Email the Editor