It looks to be: "What the Heck is Going on in Iraq Friday?"

UPDATE: al-Sistani Hints at Ok'ing Election Delay, U.S. still waits on U.N.

It's a career just trying to keep up with the 'power transfer' and election timeline in Iraq.

Okay, CNN reports that the caucus plan has been shelved. I'm not surprised. In fact, I was going to scoop the major media over this little tidbit, but the wider world took precednce over my blogging. Next time. Oh yeah.


First, I'd like to acknowledge that George H.W. Bush got the Iraq equation more correct than anyone in the current administration when he said:

"We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater instability." - George H.W. Bush, A World Transformed, 1998

I'd also like to point out that Mahmoud Othman and Adnan Pachachi are both newly returned Iraqi exiles. Everything you read should be viewed through the lens of critical thought. These two men may have different views than those that lived through Hussein's rein. Just a little pure bs caveat. :)

The U.S.' plan to cede 'power' -- something of a moving target in Iraq's case -- by or on 30 June 2004 is still being clung vigorously. Lest I be accused of misleading the reader, I should note that this is not the date by which a general election is to be held, but a date by which the Iraqi Governing Council(IGC) is slated to take 'power.' Although the U.S will still likely have in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq at that time, and much later. (more on this tomorrow)

Paul Bremer, the senior U.S. civilian in Iraq, told reporters yesterday that while there is at present, no agreed upon option to even choose the initial 'independent' Iraqi form of governance, after which elections must be held, the 30 June 2004 date is set in stone.

Bremer:

"There are literally dozens of ways in which to carry out this complicated task, including caucuses, or other kinds of elections -- partial elections."

(CNN subsequently reported that caucuses are off the table. I have comments on that to follow)

Kofi Annan agrees with the U.S. position that direct elections in Iraq are not feasible soon. In typical Annan fashion, he did not elaborate on what 'soon' means. (that's by no means a dig. I think he's a great Sec. Gen.) They are working out timelines and so forth perhaps as I type this.

Sec. Annan:

"We shared with them(the U.S. I presume) our sense that -- and the emerging consensus or understanding -- that elections cannot be held before the end of June, that the June 30 date for the handover of sovereignty must be respected, and that we need to find a mechanism to create a caretaker government and then prepare the elections...........sometime later."

I may be mistaken, but sorting through "literally dozens of ways in which to carry out this complicated task" simply in order to amounts to restructuring a system that isn't working for ordinary Iraqis is a stretch. As I hopefully make clear later, the members of the IGC do not see the "dozens of ways" that Mr. Bremer does. If you have been following this story, it is hoped by all parties to have a real general election by early 2005.

It has been reported that the U.S. Administration favors U.N. approval of further empowering the IGC so that the IGC would assume some sort of interim control. This would allow the 30 June 2004 date to be upheld. I think it's both the easiest thing to do, and also the only possible solution that can possibly be arrived by 30 June. (no, this isn't at all political)

In what may be a breakthrough of sorts -- since it is now clear that direct elections are farther into the future than what some members of the IGC were demanding -- several Iraqi leaders have responded positively to expand the IGC from its current level of membership of 25 to as many as 125 and keep this structure in power until U.N. assisted elections can be held. This maintains the U.S. time-table to transfer power and seems to be acceptable to at least some members of the IGC. There are caveats of course.

This potential breakthrough only appears to have happened with the tacit approval of Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani, reportedly Iraq's most powerful and influential Shi'ite cleric. Al-Sistani's approval allegedly hinges upon the plan's recommendation by the U.N. It should be noted that it was al-Sistani's call for early elections that forced the U.S.' hand to bring the U.N. into Iraq in the first place.

The expansion of the IGC which has been under consideration for some three weeks now is reportedly really gaining traction. As noted earlier, the U.S. reportedly approves of this plan amongst competing plans. This approval, like so many other things about Iraq isn't without a hitch. The U.S. appears ready to rubber-stamp IGC expansion if the U.N. approves it. As this plan seems to have been gaining acceptance amongst all concerned parties -- at least in their public admissions -- at this time it looks to be viable.

Yonadan Kanna, IGC member and head of the Assyrian Democratic Party seems pretty certain as to the direction the parties are headed in. In his own words:

"We have no other choice now. We are in the middle of a process and we cannot have Iraq go in a random direction. The key now is to reach out to more groups, so the people feel we represent them."

Although there is much disagreement as to how new members might be selected, there is a general consensus that the IGC needs to demonstrate autonomy from the U.S. in order to win the trust of the people.

The manner in which new members are selected is likely to be the subject of careful negotiations amongst the concerned parties. Think Sharia Law.

(this is where I was going to scoop the press on the breakdown of the caucuses..damn. If only I had finished this thing yesterday :)) Here's the bit:

"While I haven't seen any news from the U.N., Bremer, or the U.S. Administration, Adnan Pachachi -- whom Bush praised in both his SOTU address and during his hour long chat with Tim Russert on Meet The Press -- declared yesterday that "the caucuses have been discarded."

The reasons cited were that caucuses are too cumbersome and to 'foreign a concept' to work in Iraq.

During Bremer's press conference in Baghdad yesterday, he repeatedly deferred to the U.N., and said that the U.S. isn't going to make any decision about the IGC until the U.S. hears what Kofi Annan has to say. In my view, deferring to the U.N. puts to rest the whole crazy notion of the U.N. being relegated to 'debating society' status. How utterly odd that the mighty U.S. requires the assistance of a bunch of orators.

All kidding aside, the past three weeks, with its shift in policy towards more normal relations with the U.N. are meritorious and pragmatic. With GIs and Iraqis involved in deadly and frequent skirmishes, it seems likely that the Iraqis would neither accept nor trust the U.S. to do what is in Iraq's best interest. I know. That is two-by-four-to-the-head obvious. But I needed some filler :)

One can't help but glance at a calendar and note that yup, it's an election year, and the inverse proportion between Bush's faltering in the polls and the increased role of the U.N. is unlikely to be mere coincidence. If things continue to go badly in Iraq, one can't help but think the Mr. Rove will attempt to shift the blame to Kofi and Co.

But I digress.

Central to the issue of the 'form' of the IGC is that a settlement needs to be reached before an interim Constitution can be developed and ratified. The catch here is that The Constitution must define the nature and terms of the nascent government, as well as a host of other issues. (for reference see: U.S. Constitution and Articles of Amendment) I liken this concept to Newton's development of the theory of gravity. Objects didn't suddenly suspend themselves in mid-air while he was working out the details. There are obviously some very bright people working on the details of the transition. Let's hope that that the 'reasoners' win out over the 'faithful.'

In both Bush's Remarks on Meet the Press of 8 Feb. 2004, and Bremer's remarks last evening, the U.S. is still holding onto what I have been calling the 'conditional democracy' model. Simply, this is an exclusion of Sharia, or Islamic law from being inserted into the Constitution. Regardless of what Bush said on Meet The Press about the nature of the type of government that the Iraqi's want, the smart money's on Sharia. More in a bit.

It has been reported by the NYT amongst others that some members of the IGC have expressed concerns that their fellow members are more interested in keeping their positions within the council than doing what is best for Iraq. Again, this should be sledgehammer-blow-to-the-cranium obvious, but I need a segue. :)

According to Mahmoud Othman, IGC member and founder of the Kurdish Democratic Party, some IGC members tried to leverage Bremer and the U.S. using an accelerated election schedule to hold on to their positions. This move would have effectively left the council intact. According to Othman, when the IGC signed their formative agreement in Nov. 2003, many members hoped to negotiate in order to keep their jobs.

According to published reports when Bremer and Co. declined them the accelerated elections the discontented IGC members sought out the assistance of al-Sistani. This group allegedly al-Sistani to call for immediate elections, all the while knowing that the U.S. would have none of that. Al-Sistani bought the ruse, the U.S. balked and asked the U.N. to intercede. A very good move indeed.

Mr. Pachachi claims that the leading plan for power transfer is in fact the expansion of the IGC in both numbers and 'power' to preside over the country while the U.N. performs the logistical hoop-jumping required for elections. He further says this probably means that direct elections for the first truly Iraqi government could be held early in 2005, to be followed by a Constitutional Convention, and elections for a more 'permanent' Iraqi government later in the year.

Depending on the size of the as yet agreed upon size of the new and improved IGC, there is talk that form this body might emerge a form of Iraqi National Assembly, which then would choose a cabinet and prime minister. I should note here that this is but one many possibilities.

In a move that's sure to please the U.S., it seems that the Iraqis would like tribal and religious leaders to call upon candidates to nominate. Hey, if this was a bunch of fundamentalist Baptists, I'm sure this would be a go. :)

It's no secret that Iraqis see the current members and structure of the IGC as a tool of the U.S. and our interests.

I'll let Abdil Adbul Mahdi, a member of a leading Shi'ite Party have the last word:

"Now the Americans have to stay away. Anything we do, we have to be able to defend in front of our people."