"Yes to elections" "No to occupation" 100,000 Iraqis Protest in Baghdad

[Ramo]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=482907

In their greatest show of political strength since the war tens of thousands of Iraqi Shia Muslims marched through Baghdad yesterday chanting slogans in favour of free elections for a new government.

About 100,000 protesters marched through Baghdad to al-Mustansiriyah University shouting "Yes to elections" and "No to occupation".

Simply astounding. I was astonished by the 30,000 marchers in Basra a few days ago, but 100,000? Damn. And in Baghdad, no less (not a place dominated by the Shia).

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

And who said the Iraqis didn't want democracy.

[Drogue]

to both demands. Give them elections, let them take over, but leave a small force as police until the Iraqi police/army are fully trained, then leave completely.

[Agathon]

I believe that Bush must be ****ting himself at the prospect.

The last thing his government, or any government in the region except Iran, wants is a Shia dominated democracy.

Wasn't it his father who said that you couldn't give people a little democracy? Well that will bite his son in the ass now.

[Ramo]

Yep. And it's amusing that an Ayatollah has to lecture to Shrub about democracy.

[MikeH]

Democracy in Iraq. Good one.

[Sava]

wow a new mantra for protesting Iraqis... what happened to: "No Bush No Saddam, YES YES TO ISLAM!" ?

[Ramo]

Democracy in Iraq. Good one.

I'd have thought that 6 months ago, but not any more. It'll come to democracy. Or civil war. The US certainly doesn't have the capacity to establish a client state anymore, so the CPA can either handle the transition competently by giving into democracy, mollifying the Sunni by disbanding the militias, alleviating unemployment and granting labor rights, etc., or they can **** up bringing civil war, Iranian intervention, and a hardcore Islamist state. Unfortunately, past actions indicate the latter course, but who knows what some luck and a regime change/UN influence on the US might bring?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

What have you done with Ramo?

[Ramo]

Recent events in Iraq and Iran have turned me into an optimist for the moment.

[Shi Huangdi]

"or they can **** up bringing civil war, Iranian intervention, and a hardcore Islamist state."

For all these protests, there still isn't a credible military opposition to the coalition. The insurgents are decent at terrorist style attacks, but there has been nothing to suggest that they have the ability to take/hold territory.

"The US certainly doesn't have the capacity to establish a client state anymore,"

The US never did. But I would think that any democratic regime would be likely to be friendly to US(or at least more so then the previous regime). Also, setting up a democracy will be very good for US interests long term, so as to set up an example of another alternative to the current thugocracies that dominate the Arab world other than Islamic Fundamentalism.

[Ramo]

For all these protests, there still isn't a credible military opposition to the coalition. The insurgents are decent at terrorist style attacks, but there has been nothing to suggest that they have the ability to take/hold territory

These protests have absolutely nothing to do with the insurgents. The insurgents are Sunni Arab nationalists, the protesters are Shia (ranging from liberal to Islamist, but very few are Arab nationalists).

As for whether territory can be held, it's obvious they can't defend or take territory against us while we keep a large number of men in the country - but that won't continue indefinitely. Furthermore, if a civil war does break out because the Sunnis believe themselves to be disenfranchised, the more extremist elements of the Shia, such as Sadr, will tend to beat the moderate and liberal elements, and in such a case I think we'd be on the side of the insurgents.

The US never did.

Sure we did. That's what the CIA was going after. Give power to a Ba'athist that switched sides like Alawi and the problem goes away.

But I would think that any democratic regime would be likely to be friendly to US(or at least more so then the previous regime).

I doubt that a democratic regime would be friendlier to the US than Iraq during the 80's.

[Ned]

I am "totally" in favor of elections without a prior census. Let the Iraqi's vote as often as they can. This is "true" democracy, Mayor Daly style.

[Ramo]

It'd be obviously so much better to have US-appointed local councils consisting largely of ex-Ba'athists elect the gov't. True democracy feudal-style.

And back in this universe, the CPA has ignored and then rejected the Iraqis' plan for a census. There was and there still is no reason that a census can't be done other than American incompetence/malevolence.

[chequita guevara]

It can be done, Iowa style, without ballots. Just set up places for everyone to show up and argue and be counted. It'll be messy, but democracy is messy.

Anyway, the US should have known that this was gonna happen, since Sistani's been demanding proper elections from the get go. The Administration has only itself to blame.If Sistani doesn't get what he wants, the occupation is gonna become a whole lot uglier, right in the middle of our campaign season.