Iraqi election produces some hope

Although it was certainly marred by violence -- 35-38 dead depending on which counts you believe -- the election in Iraq came off reasonably successfully, at least initially and on the surface. The Sunnis voted in numbers this time, and the two leading coalitions seem to be PM Maliki's State of Law Party and former interim PB Ayad Allawi's Iraqi National Alliance. Though both are Shia, they bill themselves as secular and non-sectarian. As I predicted in my run-up piece no coalition is likely to get enough votes to form a tgovernment, so there is likely to be a period of wheeling and dealing that could take up to several months before a government is formed. If that leads to instability, it could lead to more violence. Let's hope it's resolved with a minimum of bloodshed. Getting U.S. combat troops out on a timely basis could depend on it.

For more background, Marina Ottaway, head of Middle East studies at the Carnegie Endowment, who was very helpful to me in preparing my piece, provides helpful context. Carnegie has been monitoring the Iraqi media -- fiverse and surprisingly free-wheeling -- for onths now.

Iraqi elections and U.S. withdrawal

The elections in Iraq have gotten very little attention until the last few days -- the military cares about Afghanistan and the media care about health care and the implications for elections -- the only thing in American life the media get really excited about, policy being pretty boring. But they'll be quite significant, given that they are unlikely to be decisive. It will probably take months for the Iraqis to form a government. Given that there's been serious violence -- at least 40 dead in the last couple of days -- instability is likely to lead to more violence, which could lead to civil war. I did a piece for the Register's Sunday Commentary section that tries to describe the stakes and the players. If I do say so, I haven't seen anything better, and I read most of what's out there in preparation. Hope for the best but don't necessarily expect it.

Iraqi government wants a timetable now

Well, I doubt this was what they had in mind when all those administration officials said things like we want to Iraqi government to be independent and sovereign, to reflect the wishes of the Iraqi people, and especially, when the Iraqis stand up we will stand down.

Now Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki has said it would be a good idea to have a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. He didn't offer a specific timetable, just said it would be a good idea. The foreign minister followed up, more forcefully. Of course the Bush administration has gone apoplectic whenever any U.S. war critic has uttered the forbidden word, "timetable," claiming it would play right into al-Qaida's hands. Of course, al-Qaida never was much of a factor in the insurgency, but never mind; it's the preferred enemy. Now that al-Maliki has said it would be a good idea, it puts the Bushies in a bit of a box. Do they acknowledge, as they have been claiming has been happening, that Iraq is really independent of us, which is what we claimed to want?

McCain's virtual dismissal of the remarks as "political" is more revealing of McCain than he might have wanted. If they were "merely" political it suggests that al-Maliki knows that most Iraqis want the U.S. out sooner rather than later and he has to say so or risk domestic political repercussions. But if most Iraqis want us out, isn't it time to congratulate them on achieving a measure of independence, wish them luck, and start to leave? Does McCain think his opinion is more important than that of the majority of Iraqis, or that he is so wise that he has a right to override the majority in a foreign country? A bit paternalistic and colonial are we?