Saddam loyalists urge Sunnis to vote

[sabra]

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/14BCB666-3FBF-42A7-8816-2DA800E8BEA8.htm

Saddam loyalists urge Sunnis to vote

In a move that would have been inconceivable only months earlier, Saddam Hussein loyalists are urging Sunnis to vote in Thursday's poll and warning al-Qaida fighters not to launch attacks.

As political and security tensions rise before the parliamentary elections, fighters in the Western al-Anbar province say they are even prepared to protect voting stations from those loyal to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of al-Qaida in Iraq.

These same fighters violently opposed elections held in January when many Sunnis, in rebel strongholds such as Ramadi and Falluja, either staged a boycott or were simply too scared to vote.

...

"We are telling Sunnis that they have to vote for nationalist parties and even if they win, we will be watching very closely to keep them in line," said the Falluja fighter, 28.

[Wordie]

1. I wonder if al-Zarqawi realizes that in this, at least, he helped GWB?

And I mean that the presence and activities of his people in Iraq is apparently having a positive effect - bringing the Sunnis to the voting booth, the opposite of what al-Zarqawi would want. This is the first good sign I've heard from Iraq in months. I guess al-Zarqawi is seen as an occupier too.

Note also, however, how much this shows of the likelihood, insisted upon by the Bush administration as a justification for going to war, of a coordination of any sort between Saddam and ObL. They just always had other goals. The argument has already been pretty much demolished, I realize, but just in case anyone needed a reminder...

[Teaser]

2. Why is this positive?

It's not. It's simply another phase of Iraq's civil war.

And when the Sunni's do poorly at the polling booth, which they will, and the see their shi'ah enemy do very well, who do you think benefits?

[Wordie]

3. Another example...

of why it's so difficult discussing the ME in a coherent fashion given the 25-words-or-less limitations of a discussion forum format. Ok, it's not really 25 words or less, but it does seem that brevity is desirable on a forum such as this. The problem as I see it is that the issues of the ME are so complex, that to discuss them effectively requires no less than a thesis-length post. One needs to use thesis-length in order to cover all the necessary qualifiers to what one said and all possible permutations based on the complexities of the situation.

If one goes for brevity, the chances of being misunderstood (due to one of those missing qualifiers) are exceedingly high; if one chooses instead to write one of those thesis-length posts, nobody wants to take the time to read it! LOL

OK...so on to your question now. Or, more precisely, to add those qualifiers omitted in my earlier post. When I said that it was a positive step, I meant that it was good that the Sunni leaders were taking steps to counter the al Qaida influence. I am appalled that it was our meddling that led to that influence establishing itself in Iraq. We should have, imho, spent our time and efforts going after al Qaida in Afganistan and have left Iraq alone. We claimed that al Qaida was operating in Iraq when it was not, and consequently created a self-fullfilling prophecy for ourselves, and sadly, the Iraqi people as well.

So, al Qaida is now a player in Iraq, which it was not previously. All the major players in Iraq want the US out. The question becomes are they equally united in wanting al Qaida out as well? This move by the Sunni leadership seems to suggest so. The only hope of Iraq avoiding a civil war is for the Sunnis to involve themselves in the electoral process. Will Sunni involvement in the process in itself be sufficient to ensure that a civil war won't occur? Doubtful, I agree. But it is probably the only possible thing that can avoid it, so that's why I see this as a postive step.

The question also, it seems to me, is what the Shia think about the influence of Zarqawi. Do they see him as a foreign invader, as well as the US? Would that awareness encourage them to accede to power-sharing arrangements for the Sunnis? That also remains to be seen.

I say these things with the full awareness that positive steps don't always, necessarily, lead to the positive outcomes we would want.

And I also say these things with more than a little concern about US propaganda in the Iraqi press, not to mention our own. I am never entirely certain that any of us has a clear picture of what is really going on in Iraq. The above is the best I can do with the info I have.


Edited for grammar error and for minor purposes of clarity.