I agree with your frustration at a government not being formed — but the problem lies with the Bush administration, not the Iraqis. They’ve been using all the pressure at their disposal to get the Shi’ites to drop Jafaari because the US can’t stand him — mainly because he’s socialist! The US has been the party keeping things at a standstill and damn the consequences.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that the whole impasse may very well have been generated in the very first place by Republican Ohio-style electoral shenanigans. Everyone expected the Shi’ites to garner almost 2/3 of the December vote, and they got just less than 1/2. I didn’t think much of it until I heard Cheney on TV a few days before the results were announced saying “not to worry about the outcome”. That was a huge warning balloon to me that they are mucking with the Iraqi elections just like they (probably) mucked with the ones here. They have no shame and no ethics — why should a reasonable person expect anything otherwise?

-Rudyard Kipling, “The Naulahka”

written more than a hundred years ago. how little things have changed. i found the verse in the front of hunter s. thompson’s “hey rube”.

you are a smart person! succinct and great analysis. thank you.

The American occupation was fully aware of the ethnic mixture of Iraq, and indeed, the ethnic and religious mixture of every province, and every city and town.

In particular, the United States was well aware that in any truly Democratic election, the overwhelming dominance of the Shia population, about 65% of the total, would rule. The U.S. was not entirely comfortable with this outcome, given the religious influence of clerics. america’s natural preference would be to give power to a sympathetic secular technocratic elite…. But those were the Baathists, who they had deposed and wished to purge. So, the US wanted the Sunni, but didn’t want the Sunni. That’s what the expatriates were, the Chalabi’s and the Allawai’s, the next natural ruling caste. Mixed in there were the Kurds, who were allies, but at least, not enemies in any forseeable scenario.

So, the objective was to design a governmental structure which would by its nature, frustrate inevitable Shiite dominance, cater to the Kurds, and allow some reasonable chance that with a little muscle, the American expatriate leadership could squeeze its way in, play people off, and run the country.

Thus the peculiar parliamentary system of ‘lists’ and proportional representation on a nationwide basis, the rules governing different sorts of majorities.

Of course, things began to to wrong. The big problem was how little support the expatriates had. Guys like Chalabi and Allawi got no traction with the local Iraqi’s, no matter how much money was spent on them, no matter how hard they were pushed, no matter how prominent their positions.

And then the Sunni’s sat out the first Election, which raised the specter of total Shiite domination with majority that would overwhelm any constitutional threshold.

So, right in the middle of the first election, ballot counting was stopped for three days, in order to clear up some problems. and suddenly, The Shiites super-majority vanished, the Kurds had a big surge and Allawi’s technocratic secular party became a (minor) force. Not the most favoured outcome. But the Shiites super-victory was snatched from them, and they were stalemated by Allawi and the Kurds.

Okay, let’s fast forwards a bit. There’s a referendum, on schedule, which is controversial and divisive, and for which there are very crucial claims fo fraud. There’s another election.

But here is the important thing: The Occupation retains all the power. The so called Iraqi government has no actual control over its military, or over military operations in its country. It is entirely dependent on the American military and diplomatic corps. The US controls the purse strings on the budgets, it controls the foreign aid, the reconstruction, it has ‘advisors’ in all departments, it has imposed the ‘TAL’ Traditional Administrative Law.

So, the Iraqi government, is in many ways, a puppet regime, no more real than Quisling or Vichy. It is certainly a powerless regime. Nor is the US interested in seeing it as a stand up regime.

What the US wants is not an independent state apparatus that will negotiate with it, but rather, a vehicle by which the US can negotiate its desires and policies with, and gain the acquiescence of the Iraqi people.

Thus, the emphasis on developing a system of government predisposed to stalemate and impotence. A nation afflicted by such a political system would be unable to stand for itself and would necessarily be easily dominated by outside (American) influence.

And the US has never been reluctant to medddle directly in the system. The various campaigns aginst Sadr. The pushing and massive funding of Allawi demonstrate this.

The most recent egregious example of this, is the recent American campaign against Jaafari, who by the rules established by the Americans, should be Prime Minister. Unfortunately, he isn’t acceptable. So, American influence and weight is thrown behind the Kurds and Sunnis, in order to produce an impasse. Condoleeza Rice’s visit acted only to harden that impasse. To resolve it, the Shiites must embrace a humiliating surrender. But a surrender cannot be imposed on them because they are the overwhelming majority. Thus, stalemate, manufactured in America.

Of course, for the average Iraqis, all this is just icing on the cake. Highbrow constitutional crises don’t cound for all that much when the price of gas or bread quadruples overnight, when your unemployment rate is 60% and you can’t walk over to the next street for fear of being shot, kidapped or robbed. The travails of a powerless government are meaningless.

Now, I suppose we could argue that the Iraqi government, if it could pull itself together, could start to deal with these things. But I doubt it. Security and military force will remain in the direct control of the United States. Reconstruction funds and foreign aid remain under the control of the US. The tax base is nonexistent and oil revenues are in a state of collapse, both largely because of American action. So, you have a government which is wholly dependent upon the United States for its existence, its security, its revenue. On the other side of the coin, many of the policies and initiatives such a government would take to combat the various problems would almost certainly put it directly into conflict with the United States – such as subsidizing food or gas, revitalizing state owned industries and businesses, taxing forign (American) corporations, limiting foreign (American) ownership, regulating reconstruction and purchasing locally, opening up trading relationships with Iran….

You see the point? An effective Iraqi government would almost certainly operate at cross purposes to the United States interests at least some of the time. That’s just not acceptable.

The problem for the US is that the problems of the country are rapidly escalating beyond the ability of the US to manage without sacrifice. These are sacrifices that America is unwilling to make. Sacrifice blood and treasure and Iraqi infrastrure? Yes. Sacrifice power? NO!!!

And so, the country bleeds to death, and a government which is a deliberate impotent joke is wracked by paralysis.

But, I suppose its just easier to blame the Iraqis, those dirty ungrateful gits.

If you can’t be respectful of the people who post here you are out of here. Permanently.

http://www.azzaman.com/english…..me=opinion2006-04-17153.htm

but we are the death squads here -
breeding more death squads
breeding chaos and civil war
we are the killers and thieves

If someone kills my child
I do not want them to help me with the funeral

go to markfromireland’s sites – look closer
there is no fixing possible