Poll Favourite Abdul al-Aziz al-Hakim: US must go

Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the United Iraqi Alliance list, says that Shiites refuse to be tricked into a civil war by the attacks of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Al-Hakim alleges that Sunni Arabs are taking part in great numbers in the electoral process and says that he expects them to come out and vote on January 30. (According to some reports, many of the Sunni Arab slates that al-Hakim cited as proof of Sunni involvement in the elections have actually withdrawn.)

Registration has been extended for Iraqi voters abroad, since so far the number of registrants has been disappointing-- about 90,000. An estimated one million expatriate Iraqis are eligible to vote, but it appears that only a tenth of that actually will. It should be remembered that in many countries it is necessary to travel for hours (even hours by plane) to get to a voter registration office (there are only two in Australia and none in Perth; there are none in the US South below Kentucky). In any case, the expatriate vote is largely irrelevant, since the election is being held on a proportional basis. If a list gets 10 percent of the national vote, it can seat its top 27 or 28 candidates, who are on a ranked list, in the 275-member parliament. A hundred thousand expats could only add a percentage point or two to a list's total, especially since they will split their vote among several lists. (Dearborn, near where I live, is Sistani territory).

The Guardian asked a number of Iraqi politicians and observers of Iraq what they thought of the idea of a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from the country. The idea is obviously growing in popularity. I expressed my anxiety about a repeat of India 1947 or Palestine 1948-- i.e. massive bloodshed, political partition, and subsequently several wars. Interestingly, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim seems to favor it, but underlines that it should be an Iraqi decision.

Helena Cobban, veteran Middle East observer and journalist and a dear friend, argues against my anxieties at her web log. She can't understand why I think things could get worse if the US withdrew precipitously. I can't understand why it would be hard to understand. The Baathists would begin by killing Grand Ayatollah Sistani, then Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, then Ibrahim Jaafari, and so on down the list of the new political class. Then they would make a coup. Once they had control of Iraq's revenues, they could buy tanks and helicopter gunships in the world weapons bazaar and deploy them again against the Shiites. They might not be able to hang on very long, but it is doubtful if the country would survive all this intact. The Badr Corps could not stop this scenario, or it would have stopped all the assassinations lately of Shiite notables in the South, including two of Sistani's aides. Had the US not dissolved the Iraqi army, I'd be out in the streets now demanding an immediate US withdrawal. The failures of the Fallujah campaign made it amply clear that the US armed forces are unlikely to make headway against the guerrilla insurgency, and in the meantime are just making hundreds of thousands of Iraqis more angry. You will note that Sistani, who is not shy about these things, has not demanded an immediate withdrawal of US forces. In fact, I was told by a US observer of the scene in Najaf that a member of the marja'iyyah asked the US to take care of the Mahdi Army for them last summmer.

There is a saying in Arabic, Ahl al-bayt a`lamu bima fi'l-bayt--the people of a house know best what is in the house. When Sistani says the US should set a timetable and go, then I think we should all support that. But the US has made a big enough mess in Iraq without compounding it by hanging the Iraqis out to dry and decamping suddenly. By the way, Iraqis have more than once pleaded with me to argue against precipitous withdrawal by the US.

Helena also argues against my invocation of India 1947 and Palestine 1948, where I suggest that the pre-announced date of a British withdrawal helped throw both into chaos, partition and virtual civil war. She replies that there have been successful instances of decolonization without partition or civil war. Of course there have been. But I would argue that ethnically based politics is so entrenched in Iraq at the moment that it does look more like India in 1947 or Palestine in 1948 than it looks like Kenya, Ghana or even Algeria at the moment they gained their freedom. I thank her for noting that this is not a trivial concern.

Mind you, if the elected Iraqi parliament asks for a withdrawal timetable, I think the US has an absolute duty to comply. It is a different issue as to whether such a move is wise or could succeed without the Iraqis paying an even higher price than they have already paid.

http://www.juancole.com/2005/01/al-hakim-no-to-civil-war-yes-to.html

Hala Jaber, Baghdad
THE Shi’ite Muslim cleric tipped to become prime minister after next Sunday’s election in Iraq has said it will be the duty of the new government to demand the withdrawal of American forces “as soon as possible”.

“No people in the world accepts occupation and nor do we accept the continuation of American troops in Iraq,” said Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

“We regard these forces to have committed many mistakes in the handling of various issues, the first and foremost being that of security, which in turn has contributed to the massacres, crimes and calamities that have taken place in Iraq against the Iraqis.”

In comments certain to raise eyebrows in the United States, al-Hakim spoke of a role for Iran and Syria — both regarded in Washington as enemies in the war on terror — along with Iraq’s other neighbours, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Kuwait, in the security of the country.

“These countries have past experiences and good security forces and with good relations we can solve this problem together,” he said.

“Should the security problem continue, it will not end at the border of Iraq but extend to their countries.”

Al-Hakim, who heads a list of 228 candidates representing the United Iraqi Alliance — a coalition of the main Shi’ite factions — refused to be drawn into specifying a timetable for American withdrawal, saying that the details had to be worked out after the election.

However, speaking slowly and emphatically, he added: “Iraq can rely on itself and its people and it does not want foreign troops in its country.”

President George W Bush’s administration has said that an Iraqi request for the removal of the 173,000 American and other foreign troops in the country would be honoured but declined to give any indication of timing.

Britain does not want to keep troops in Iraq for “a moment longer than we need to”, the Foreign Office said yesterday. “It’s a matter of staying sufficiently long for the Iraqis to be sufficiently robust to achieve security.”

The powerful alliance headed by al-Hakim was formed on the initiative of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq’s most revered spiritual leader. It is expected to win a majority of seats in the 275-member transitional national assembly, from which the prime minister will be chosen.

The election is being boycotted by most Sunni political parties, both secular and religious. Although outnumbered by the Shi’ite majority, the Sunnis dominated Iraq under Saddam Hussein but will emerge from the election with their influence sharply reduced.

Bush has heralded the election as the first test of his hopes for the spread of democracy to the Middle East but the administration appears increasingly concerned about the Shi’ite-dominated government that it is now expected to produce.

Further cause for pessimism has emerged with an American intelligence report warning that the elections will be followed by more violence, with an increased likelihood of clashes between Shi’ites and Sunnis that could lead to civil war.

It is all a far cry from Bush’s earlier vision of a secular Iraq that would become a crucial ally in the Middle East.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1452397,00.html