2 Marines Killed
UIA picks up some smaller parties
Two US Marines were reported having been killed on Friday.
Newsweek details how the guerrilla movement has denied Iraq the oil income that the Bush administration had depended on for reconstruction. There have been 20 big attacks on the most important parts of the Baiji refinery complex in the past year.
Al-Hayat reports that [Ar.] the fundamentalist Shiite United Iraqi Alliance, with 128 seats in parliament, has picked up several allies. The Risaliyun or Message Party, a Sadrist group with 2 seats, had already announced that it will vote with the UIA. In addition, the Iraqi Nation Party of Mithal Al-Alusi (1 seat) will vote with the UIA, as will the Christian Mesopotamia Party of Yonadim Kana (1 seat). These allies bring the UIA to 132. It needs 138 for a simple majority, so it just needs 6 more allies to have a stable government.
Inside the UIA, al-Hayat says, the fierce competition for the post of next prime minister has led to a smear campaign against Nadim al-Jabiri of the fundamentalist Shiite Virtue Party, whom some are accusing of having been a Baathist. They alleged that he is disqualified by the debaathifcation laws from holding high political office. The Virtue Party denies the accusation and condemned the "coarse game" some in the UIA are playing.
UIA sources said that rather than reviving the Shiite-Kurdish alliance of the last government, they would seek a government of national unity and would attempt to bring in the Sunni Arabs, so as to avoid giving the Kurds a golden opportunity to increase their demands.
He also said that it would be risky for the UIA to depend on an alliance with the small parties, since that would produce an unstable government always in danger of falling.
Abu Musab al-Zaraqawi, the notorious terrorist leader, is seeking new allies in Iraq.
Some 9 persons were killed in guerrilla violence on Saturday. Some were bodyguards of president Jalal Talabani.
posted by Juan Cole @ 1/22/2006 06:30:00 AM
Click to join Infoco
8 Comments:
It is not only that Iraq is being denied Oil revenues, the world is denied the Oil.
Some numbers to illustrate from http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/oil.html
The DoE expects consumption to rise from 78M barells per day (2002) to 95 (2010)103 (2015)and 115 (2025.)Meanwhile important producers like Norway and the UK will virtually run out this decade.
To meet the needs, Saudi and Iraq may supply 40 or even 50 million barrels a day. This is a trillion dollars or more a year! Failing to meet that, the world economy would be in trouble.
Future generations will be shocked at how the future of the World Economy is being dictated by simpletons and theives like Bush, Hakim, Cheney, and Talabani.Law makers must start bypassing these people before it is too late.
Civilian losses in Iraq?
One neutral term for Mr.Enright's occupation is a defense contractor. Another, less neutral, is a mercenary. As a non-uniformed fighter, he certainly qualifies for a guerilla. From the other side, remembering Spielberg's Munich, we can point out that special services routinely use non-uniformed personnel in their operations. Further, we are likely to start asking questions about the funds involved.
At this point, putting it all together, we find one reasonable explanation for the neoconservative outrage at this movie.
The real problem is, Spielberg interferes with PR operations like this one from GU/AP! From this prospective, semantic games like in this GU story look completely ridiculous. No, this is not the way the neocons want us to look at GWOT.
GU. Tribute to civilian killed in Iraq
The parents of a former British paratrooper killed in Iraq have paid tribute to their son.
Stephen Enright, 29, of Devon, was working as a civilian for a US-based military operation, when he was killed after an explosive hit the vehicle in which he was travelling in Baghdad. Another worker was injured in the incident, which happened on Thursday.
The Virtue Party denies the accusation and condemned the "course game" some in the UIA are playing.
Wouldn't that be a "coarse game"?
Spreading Crocodile Tears on Troubled Oil
Any Big Oil President has a two-cell matrix for decision-making:
oil price up = good
oil price down = bad
In this light events in Iraq over the past four years have worked out splendidly. Iraqi production is down, and world prices are up. Didn't hurt a single US oil producer, as none have a stake in Iraq.
Read the linked Newsweek article on oil problems in Iraq in this light, and all the ditzing around over "helping restore" Iraqi oil production and "protecting pipelines" can be seen in a new light--policy working out as planned, if not as stated.
Work out for yourself how the decision matrix works regarding Iran policy. Kind of makes mincemeat of any idea that Tehran will withhold its oil from the world market and "punish" Bush. Bush and Ahmed-y-nejad share strong interests when it comes to oil, and likely are capable of a strong Alphonse-and-Gaston performance.
Regarding Iraq, there may be a further benefit--the government now "taking over" in Iraq faces insurmountable problems with insufficient resources. What are its chances of lasting a year, much less the mandated four? Especially with foreign military and "private" "security" forces hanging around?
In my continuing quest for an explanation of why a two-thirds majority in the Iraqi parliament means anything, I have found someone as befuddled as I am.
Matthew Søberg Shugart is professor of political science at the Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies (IR/PS),
University of California, San Diego.
I know, you just can't trust these professors. But in a blog last month, he wrote:
There seems to be some confusion about how the next Iraqi government will be formed. For instance, an article in the New York Times from December 15 implies that a “national unity” government will be required, due to super-majority provisions in the constitution. Notwithstanding that a national unity (or “grand”) coalition is precisely what the Iraqi situation cries out for, the constitution allows a majority of the just-elected parliament to appoint the government. I already discussed, earlier today, how these provisions will not allow the Sunni Arabs apprecialy more influence despite their participation, and why the Sunni guerrilla movements are thus likely to continue–or expand–their armed pressure on the government. Here I want to address the constutional and electoral-system provisions in Iraq directly.
From the NYT:
The formation of the next Iraqi government is expected to be further delayed by the requirement of a two-thirds majority vote for the election of a “presidential council” of a president and two vice presidents that will nominate a prime minister for parliamentary approval. In practice, that means that any Iraqi leader hoping to form a government will effectively need a supermajority.
This is not right. Article 67 of the Iraqi constitution has two paragraphs on how the Council of Representatives (the parliament just elected) shall select the President of the Republic (which is indeed redefined in the transitory provisions as a three-person council elected on a single slate):
First: The Council of Representatives shall elect, from among the nominees, the President of the Republic by a two-thirds majority of its members.
So far, so good. But then there is a gigantic loophole:
Second: If any of the candidates does not receive the required majority vote then the two candidates who received the highest number of votes shall compete and the one who receives the highest number of votes in the second election shall be declared as President.
So, it takes two thirds unless the majority does not want it to take two thirds.
But even this has little to do with forming a government, which actually means the prime minister and cabinet. Article 73:
First: The President of the Republic shall name the nominee of the Council of Representatives bloc with the largest number to form the Cabinet within fifteen days from the date of the election of the president of the republic.
In other word, there is a mandatory first crack at forming a government given to the alliance that has obtained the most seats in parliament (otherwise known as the UIA)–unless perhaps an alternative bloc has already formed by that point that is larger (which is unlikely, as I noted in “Guerrillas and Elections” earlier today).
A later provision of the Article 73 notes that the prime minister is deemed to have the confidence of parliament once his ministers and his program of government have been approved by “an absolute majority.”
In other words, there is no super-majority requirement to form a government in Iraq.
Not that it would be a bad thing if there were, contrary to the claim of the next paragraph of the above-linked NYT article:
One possibility, if no Iraqi leader can cobble together enough votes, is a “national unity” government consisting of the leaders of all the major parties. Such an outcome is unlikely and it is not preferred by many Iraqi leaders, who fear that such a government would be too fractious to carry out decisive action.
In other contexts, a government incable of carrying out decisive action is one known as being checked against the tyranny of the majority. That is, a national unity (or “grand”) coalition would be exactly what the divided nature of Iraqi society calls for. But while such a government is indeed possible if the leaders decide it is in their interests (perhaps to restrain the threat of civil war), there is no constitutional provision that requires it or makes it particularly likely. In fact, as I have been saying in this space since August (see any of several Iraq posts), this constitution is actually quite majoritarian.
I learned about this NYT article from Outside the Beltway, and I am quite grateful to James for calling it to his readers’ attention. However, James follows up the article’s remark about a national unity government with the following observation:
Such is the way with proportional representation schemes. The framers of this constitution clearly needed more input from–or to better heed–political scientists. If they insisted on proportional representation, which leads to a ridiculous number of political parties and constant jostling to put together and maintain a governing coalition, then they might have borrowed the double ballot system from France. Under that scheme, there is an election wherein people can vote for their little fractious party followed, if none win a majority, with a runoff between the two largest vote getters. That creates, in effect, a pre-election coalition that is much more stable.
In that quoted passage, James seems to be implying that the two-round system in single-member districts (the French system) is part of the broader family of proportional representation (PR), which it manifestly is not. But that aside, there are a couple of points to keep in mind here in comparing the suitability of some sort of candidate-and-district-based system (like that of France, or the US) versus proportional representation:
http://fruitsandvotes.com/?p=373
Here it goes. This is not just a rant, Ahmadinejad prepared consistent ideological framework for Sadr's statement.
AJ. Al-Sadr vows to defend Iran
Sadr and What Army?
Inplainviewmonitor comment re Sadr's announced intention to "defend" Iran brings a couple thoughts to mind:
--Sadr may well be a sh(r)ill bogeyman in the Rovian nightmare threat of a nuclear Iran, a Middle Eastern Friday the 13th pt.xx, ready to start unspooling whenever needed for US domestic purposes. Remember the storyline as to how he (Sadr, not Rove) got started in the US consciousness: verbal attacks on the US, some fighting, high-visibility US threats to get him, followed by US military backing off--ostensibly because Arab Sunni publics which had already held their breath until they turned blue, were about to hold their breath and turn blue again if Sadr were attacked, and Sadr's ultimate "turn" to participation in the "political" process. Nice to have him around to huff and puff when needed, and possibly gives him Castro-like political semi-immortality.
--Whether you accept the above analysis or not, which may be grossly "unfair" to his character, what does he have that would slow down any US attack on Iran? Anything that would stand up to a US company-sized action? Doubtful.
Re: Sadr defending Iran
Sadr has people power. And if Sistani joins in bringing millions of Iraqis into the streets demanding an end to America's occupation, then it is all over no matter how many guns and bombs America has.
Remember, that's how Iraq came to have elections even though Bush et al wanted Saddam-lite.
A corollary is that America can't attack Iran or the illusion of American military power will be shown to be useless by massive people power.
Post a Comment
<< Home