Be careful what you wish for

Some time ago - back on June 30 and again on July 17 - I said that evidence indicated that the people of Iraq, desperate for peace, security, and jobs, were prepared to give the interim government a chance. It appears that time and that chance are slipping away. As found in the Washington Post for Friday,

[l]eaders of Iraq's religious parties have emerged as the country's most popular politicians and would win the largest share of votes if an election were held today, while the U.S.-backed government of interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is losing serious ground, according to a U.S.-financed poll by the International Republican Institute.

More than 45 percent of Iraqis also believe that their country is heading in the wrong direction, and 41 percent say it is moving in the right direction.

Meanwhile, support for the Allawi's government has plummeted 20 percentage points since late summer. And as many people blame the US "coalition" forces for security problems in Iraq as blame "foreign terrorists." Almost no one blames Saddam Hussein's government.

That suggests to me that, as a number of commentators have already pointed out too many times, that the real problem is the occupation itself. That's why Allawi is fading: because he's tied to the US, blamed by many for the continuing problems. That's why the religious parties are gaining strength: because they've opposed the occupation. (And, being in the opposition, they also have the one real-world advantage outsiders have over insiders: no need to actually have produced results from your promises.)

One thing I think we on the left and the White House can agree on is that we don't want to see a government of religious fundamentalists. (The difference being they will limit it to Islamic fundamentalists while we include all stripes of fundamentalism and apply it to all places - including here.) So let's assume that a victory by the religious parties in the January election would be a harbinger of such a government since those elected in January will write the constitution. That's not an unreasonable speculation: The most popular party in the poll (mentioned by 18% of respondents) is the Dawa Party, which openly seeks an Islamic republic in Iraq. And the most popular politician is Abdel Aziz al-Hakim of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), with a majority wanting to see him in the National Assembly, followed by Allawi with 47% support and - significantly - Moqtada al-Sadr, with 46%.

Now, a fundamentalist government is by no means a sure thing even if the religious parties gain control of the National Assembly, since a number of leading clerics, including Ali al-Sistani, shy away from the idea of an Iraqi government ultimately run by religious officials ala Iran. (In fact, Hakim also has expressed opposition to an Islamic government.) But what all this means is that to the extent that you assume it's a real possibility, to the extent that you are worried about the establishment of a reactionary religious government in Iraq, to that same extent the single best thing you can do to head off such an eventuality is end the damn occupation!

Announce a schedule for military withdrawal, say you'll happily stay to assist in reconstruction and relief efforts if the government of Iraq so desires it, that you will chip in your share and more of the costs, but the fighting forces will be gone by such-and-such a date. And not some date like "when things are secure," which is utterly meaningless, or "the end of 2008" or some such too-far-off date. Something more like, hell, let's be generous and say "June 28 - the anniversary of the transfer of sovereignty." Allow the WHS* some political symbolism. But set the damn date and get the hell out!

Footnote: The same Post article says that Colin Powerless told Abu Dhabi television that

Iraqis want democracy and are unlikely to go "from one form of totalitarian state to another form of totalitarian state."

In part this expressed the opinion of US officials, matching my own belief expressed above, that the rise of religious parties does not mean the creation of a theocracy. But it also has a dark underside, noted here for the record: It could form the basis of a future refusal to withdraw military forces from Iraq on the grounds that the National Assembly is creating a constitution "contrary to the clear wishes of the Iraqi people for freedom and democracy" or some such line. That may not have been in Powell's mind - but I wouldn't put it past them.

*WHS = White House Sociopaths