Monday, February 14, 2005
Iraq: Election Results and Implications
The elections results are not that different from what had been predicted. Perhaps 58% of eligible voters voted. The United Iraqi Alliance (Shiite grand alliance promoted by Ayatollah Sistani) received 48%, the Kurdistan Alliance received 26%, and the Iraqi List (non-ethnic, secular, Allawi's party) received 14%. A variety of other parties took the rest. The Kurds did somewhat better than expected simply because a higher percentage of Kurds voted than any other group. The Sunnis did poorly because their voting percentages were so low. In Anbar province west of Baghdad only 2% of eligible voters voted. The only place with significant Sunni voting was probably Baghdad itself. The President, Yawar, a Sunni received 5% of the vote.
The analysis coming out, generally based on Iraqi sources, suggests that the United Iraqi Alliance is going to have to compromise a good deal to be able to govern. It also must be remarked that the Alliance includes groups with widely varying agendas (for example from secular to fundamentalist). It could easily break up.
But what is most worrying this writer is the evident feeling of the Kurds that they won the election. They are demanding that the head of one of their two factions, Talabani, be made President. They are also sure to renew their demand for the Kirkuk area and its oil wealth. Their demands may be justified, but whether or not, it implies that if they are not met, the Kurds will simply pack their bags and draw their own borders for a new state. Not a bad outcome in theory. But if this means real division of the state, it could mean war. The Shiites are likely to fight to retain Kirkuk and a unified country.
Another worrying aspect of what is happening is the fact that the resistance, the insurgency, is still active. Only now it is more than ever concentrating on killing Shiites and Kurds. Americans seem to be less important targets. It is deliberately trying to enflame an ethnic war because it evidently feels it can win on the battlefield. Where this goes I do not know. But all these strands and possibilities are likely to place coalition forces in some nasty and dangerous situations. They do not want to find themselves fighting Kurds or Sunnis, or vice-versa.
The analysis coming out, generally based on Iraqi sources, suggests that the United Iraqi Alliance is going to have to compromise a good deal to be able to govern. It also must be remarked that the Alliance includes groups with widely varying agendas (for example from secular to fundamentalist). It could easily break up.
But what is most worrying this writer is the evident feeling of the Kurds that they won the election. They are demanding that the head of one of their two factions, Talabani, be made President. They are also sure to renew their demand for the Kirkuk area and its oil wealth. Their demands may be justified, but whether or not, it implies that if they are not met, the Kurds will simply pack their bags and draw their own borders for a new state. Not a bad outcome in theory. But if this means real division of the state, it could mean war. The Shiites are likely to fight to retain Kirkuk and a unified country.
Another worrying aspect of what is happening is the fact that the resistance, the insurgency, is still active. Only now it is more than ever concentrating on killing Shiites and Kurds. Americans seem to be less important targets. It is deliberately trying to enflame an ethnic war because it evidently feels it can win on the battlefield. Where this goes I do not know. But all these strands and possibilities are likely to place coalition forces in some nasty and dangerous situations. They do not want to find themselves fighting Kurds or Sunnis, or vice-versa.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
