Redstate

Iraqi Shi'ites aren't ideologically like Iranian Shi'ites. The Najaf School of Shi'a Islam interprets the mosque/state relationship in an entirely different way than do the Iranians. Ayatollah al-Sistani studies until Ayatollah al-Khoei, who believed that democracy and Islam were compatible, and that religious leaders should not try to control secular affairs. From what we know, Sistani believes something similar.

Iraq's government will probably be informed by Islamic teachinges, but I rather doubt that the UIA will embrace shari'a in the way that the Iranians have.

While being among the first to admit that I do not claim either clairvoyance or access to the pipeline to the Truth, so you may very well end up being right. But this analysis is superficial.

You can't in the same breath say yes, many major European parties are called "Christian Democrats" and that doesn't mean anything... but an Islamic party with "Islamic" in its name means a theocracy. You especially can't do that in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Given the fact that the UIA underperformed in the elections and has only the slimmest of majorities, and given that the UIA is not a homogenous bloc but a coalition of 21 religious and secular parties, it is hard to see how they will have the strength to push very far towards the theocratic nightmare that has now become the favorite talking point in the never-ending Bush-is-a-failure meme.

I think most critical observers of situation believe Iranian influence is overstated.

But I rather suspect that voting in religiously themed parties is not the beginning of a theocracy. Especially when non-religiously themed parties were voted in at the same time.

Im as big on gloom and doom as the next guy, but it's a little early for that here.

(and I'll let Dan answer this himself) - I brought up the very example of Christian Democrats in Europe. Does the use of Islamic or Hezbollah or other alarming words in their political system really mean what it means to us? Or is that us projecting an American interpretation. I've no idea of the answer, just curious.

In a recent Zogby poll:

63% of Iraqis say they want a secular government.

36% say they want a government like the UAE, a very western style Arab government.

16% say they want a government like the US.

Iraq has an educated middle class. There are more PhDs. in Iraq than any other Arab country. They are not all suicide bombers.

I remain optimistic on Iraq.

Streiff, I can indeed say that some of the major United Iraqi Alliance parties, such as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, are both theocratic and Iranian influenced. I can say this because the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (I'd have thought that the not-so-subtle name would have been a hint) was formed in Iran, was funded by Iran, and has for years explicitly advocated an Islamic theocracy in Iraq. This doesn't mean they will suceed in instituting a theocracy. It does mean that Iran has already influenced Iraq. That's a bad thing. Streiff: doesn't it disturb you that this party of religious fanatics (the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq) did so well in the Iraqi elections?    

Eagle Watcher, the polls you site are encouraging. But they are just polls. (Exit polls had people thinking that John Kerry would be the 44th President of the United States.) There was just an election in Iraq. The winning slate included several parties formed for the purpose of creating an Islamic theocracy in Iraq. Isn't this alarming to you?  

If the Iraqis decide on a theocratic government that is respectful of human rights, is responsive to Iraq's population, and is friendly to the US and our interests, is that a problem?

If so, why?

Cheers -

If the Iraqis decide on a theocratic government that is respectful of human rights, is responsive to Iraq's population, and is friendly to the US and our interests, is that a problem?

I think this question is somewhat academic, for a few reasons:

First, the odds of a theocratic government being responsive to Iraq's population, or friendly to the US and our interests, seem pretty low.

Second, of course, there's the problem of "one man, one vote, one time."  Is a theocratic government really going to be amenable to a peaceful turnover of power? I wonder.

Third, it's hard to imagine all Iraqis peacefully going about their business while ruled by a Shia theocracy.  So theocracy would equal either repression or instability or both.

That said, I  really don't think theocracy is going to happen in Iraq-- the Sunnis don't want it, the secular Shiites don't want it, the Kurds don't want it.  Civil war is more likely than theocracy, in my opinion (though still pretty unlikely).  But if theocracy is the result it'll be bad news.  It may not look just like Iran, but it won't look good.  

It is rather their country. And I am 100% with Bush on this issue:

The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies. They seek to impose and expand an empire of oppression, in which a tiny group of brutal, self-appointed rulers control every aspect of every life. Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflect their own cultures.

I would just remind you that deGaulle was funded by the US and Britain and a fat lot of good it did us.

Equally, I think the "formed in Iran" is a canard that does little to inform and much to obscure. Virtually all resistance to Saddam, secular or religious, was formed and based in Iran. Even the Kurdish party set to provide the President was based in and funded by Iran. It is pretty difficult to identify any other nation in the region willing to stand up to Saddam.

If you were expecting a, like Larry Kaplan, a Western liberal democracy you are going to be disappointed. But I don't know why anyone would have reason to expect a people to divest itself of its religion and culture to make us happy.

Dan,

Yes, some of the parties in the winning coalition may be theocratic, but many of them were not. I mean, Chalabi is a leading candidate for prime minister within the winning coalition, and he is very, very far from being a theocrat.

Moreover, although the coalition won a majority of the seats, they did not win the supermajority necessary to govern without building voting alliances with other parties. The other 2 big winners were the current political leaders (more or less installed by the U.S. and quite secular) and the Kurds. Both are absolutely opposed to theocratic rule of the country.

So no, I'm not too worried about the future, uncertain as it is.

--Patrick Martin

Iraq has about as much of a chance of becoming a theocracy as post-Revolution America had a chance to become a monarchy. Sure, a small minority might have called for it, but the memory of the oppression would never have allowed the majority to accept it.

Iraqis will remember the dictatorship of Saddam for a long, long time, and they have a living example of the evils of theocracy as well: Iran. I don't think it is too far of a stretch to think that Iraqis know that a theocracy is not the rule of men by God's law, but rather the rule of men by men who claim special knowledge of God's law.

Will Iraqi law be strongly influenced by Islam? Bet on it, just as post-Revolution American law was strongly influenced by Christianity. But the idea that Iraq will slip into theocracy just because the majority of its people are Muslims is just as ridiculous as the idea that America would have become a monarchy just because the majority of its people had known no other type of government.

It's worth noting that, at least at the moment, the Turkish Islamic parties are among the most steadfast advocates for democracy -- and they are making laws that will make it tougher for them to undue the Turkish democracy if the Islam-is-incompatible-with-democracy crowd is right and it's all a ruse.

I'm guardedly hopeful that, in the long run, Iraq will influence Iran more than the other way around.  But, to increase the odds of success, the Bush administration must elevate its game.  Seemingly distasteful things, like cutting the deals to bring "old Europe" on board, can no longer be put off.  

Incidentally, Putin must be confronted and contained; we've now all seen his soul, and it is not the soul of a democrat.

I posted about this about a week ago, rather than retype it all, I'll just excerpt some parts that I think are relevant:

To have another Shia majority in the Middle East is a strategic placement in the Middle East next to Iran.  A free Shia Iraq sets a monumental precedent and goal for the Shia who continue to be brutally oppressed in Iran.  If Sunnis were to regain control, as they are trying, it would once again be another setup like that of the Iraq-Iran War.  Paranoid leader(s) compounded with even more religious zeal from the Sunni side would ignite unextinquishable flames in the region.  There are also doctrinal differences between the two Shia faiths, if anything Iraqi Shia have somewhat of an upperhand because of the location many of the Shia holy shrines within Iraq.  Just like Saudi Arabia is the guardians of Mecca and Medina, Iraq is the guardian of Karbala and Najaf.  "Najaf" Shia are much more inclined to the acceptance of democratic values.

Now with Iraq's Shia shift, there is real chance for change and revolt (which has been brewing) in Iran.  However, it's also a time for Iran to get increasingly worried and resort to more extreme measures (nuclear development).

It's also a chance for Syria to become worried, for reasons I detailed in a previous post.

Of course conflict will still continue in the region, well after the different ethnicities and religions in Iraq eventually stabilize and become a "nation-state," but it's doubtful that Iraq turning Ayatollah Khomeini-esque is in the cards.