Thomas Friedman, in his column in today’s Times (Worth a Thousand Words), focuses the current situation in Iraq through the lens of a recent event, when gunman in broad daylight at a major intersection in Baghdad pulled three election workers from their car and executed them, unmasked and feeling no need at all to disguise themselves; perhaps, in part, this essay is a response to the absurd alternate history fiction Safire published Monday. Regardless, from this focal point he derives a black and white distinction between those Iraqis fighting against America, the Allawi government and the January 30 elections and those Iraqis working and fighting for them.
Yet I think that in drawing his conclusion, that those against are “the real fascists” and those for democrats, Friedman misses–amazingly–a third possibility, that Iraqis such as Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani (Iraq’s foremost religious leader and leader of the United Iraqi Alliance, probable winner of the elections) are not interested in a democratic government for Iraq. William Lind asserts that Sistani and his supporters no doubt do want the elections to come off but only so they can put in place a theocratic system similar to, though not aligned with or controlled by, nextdoor neighbor Iran.
And I have no doubt that one of the first actions by a Sistani-led government will be a demand for American and coalition troops to leave Iraq. How will Bush and Rumsfeld respond to an official request from the people the administration has worked so hard, and sacrificed so many lives, to put in place? John Robb, what do you think?
BillSaysThis 