Does the low Sunni turnout increase the liklihood of Civil War? n/t

[kuozzman]

[tridim]

1. The fact that BushCo had an election in Iraq

that wasn't inclusive of all the citizens, and called it "Democracy" will increase the likelihood of civil war.

[judy]

2. I once had a conversation with an Iraqi here in California,

and he told me that the only hope for Iraq was to elect the list of Ayatollah Al Sistani.
This was, in his words because Sistani is a moderate and would not impose Shariah on women, and would want to keep a secular government, and would definitely want the US to leave.

However, when I think about it, I think that any self-respecting government of Iraq would nationalize oil reserves and production so the proceeds would go to the people of Iraq, and kick Halliburton &Co out of the reconstruction process, to reduce unemployment and reduce the risks of Civil War. Civil War is more unlikely if everyone has a good paying job.
Unfortunately, we know that the US, through the past decades has never allowed countries to own their own oil reserves, and that there is no way the US would allow such a thing to happen.

[Igel]

4. Use the oil revenues for public infrastructure.

And for some training of Iraqis.

Do not just distribute the money. Artificial wealth not tied to labor is a bad thing. They tried that in Sa'udi Arabia.

Many PhDs in Islamic studies. Few in engineering. They're trying Saudization now--essentially requiring that increasing percentages of Saudis in certain jobs. And they're running into problems--not just kicking out Pakistanis and Filipinos, many of them born in Arabia and speaking no Urdu, Baluchi, or Tagalog--but having trouble finding qualified Saudis.

[judy]

7. You are correct, Igil

I misrepresented what I meant when I said the proceeds should go to the people of Iraq. I meant the oil revenues should be used to fund infrastructure and reconstruction projects that would be implemented by Iraqi companies.

Thanks for the correction, it was right on.

[Pithy Cherub]

3. One could also argue that a high Kurdish turnout

could contribute to a disproportionate representation that could escalate tension within Iraq.

[mdmc]

5. no... civil war is inevitable

[Igel]

6. No, I don't think so.

They're both making a point and showing that they don't want to stand up to the resistance. Or are afraid (which would have been the way to increase turnout--get out the word that the Sunni Arab men that didn't vote were cowards; or it would have gotten the person saying that killed. Dunno which).

After all, the way it's set up now: either the Sunni Arab resistance manages a coup and imposes Sunni Arab dominance again ("as Allah intended", no doubt, Sunnis outrank apostate Shi'a and Arabs outrank Kurds); or they get invited in, as guests of honor, their importance recognized by all.

Had the Sunni Arabs placed second, or even third, in the ethnic lottery that the Iraqi elections are turning into, they'd be shamed.

After all, I think that Sunni Arabs sort of believed that everybody had it good, or as they deserved; and that the current system, especially the possibility that the Shi'a could be a majority, is just counter to the natural order of things.

I also don't think that there'll be Kurdish or Shi'a triumphalist views that last more than a week or two. Not long enough to affect the constitution writing, anyway. And for the Kurds to demand a shot at one of the top two offices--why not? It'll require the Shi'a and Kurds to be big enough not to lord it over the Sunni Arabs.

This is just to argue that the elections don't increase the chances of civil war. I'm not sure they decrease them, however.