That Iraqi democracy -- so messy

Candidate Bush Bush - Gore debate 11 Oct. 2000:

GOV. BUSH: Well -- I don't think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war; that's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops.

And I'm not -- I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the Korea peninsula, not only to keep the peace on the peninsula, but to keep regional stability. And I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO. But I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious.

Pretty clear policy. Let the indigenous folks decide their own forms of governments.

President Bush on Meet The Press 08 Feb. 2004

Russert: If the Iraqis choose, however, an Islamic extremist regime, would you accept that, and would that be better for the United States than Saddam Hussein?

President Bush: They're not going to develop that. And the reason I can say that is because I'm very aware of this basic law they're writing. They're not going to develop that because right here in the Oval Office I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al-Hakim, people from different parts of the country that have made the firm commitment, that they want a constitution eventually written that recognizes minority rights and freedom of religion.

Hmm. Seems like a slight shift of position here. Of course the facts on the ground -- as best as we can tell -- do not conform to Mr. Bush's publicly disclosed version of reality. Well, sure they're not going to initially have an Islamic theocracy, but that's only because the U.S. isn't going to allow it.

Today:

U.N. Official Favors Direct Election in Iraq

12:37 PM PST, February 12, 2004

A United Nations representative, trying to determine a stable transition of power in Iraq, strongly backed an influential Shiite cleric's view today to choose a new government through national elections.

Lakdar Brahimi, the U.N. adviser, was unable to say whether the elections could be held by June 30. On that date, the U.S. hopes that transitional leaders can be chosen through a caucus system until a national vote can be held in early 2005.

The leading cleric of Iraq's Shiite majority, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, has called for swift, direct elections rather than the U.S.-backed plan for a caucus system. His demand, which drew tens of thousands of supporters to a rally last month, forced the Bush administration to ask for U.N. intervention. But he has called off further protests until the U.N. completes its work.

"Al-Sistani is still insisting on the elections," Brahimi told reporters after the meeting in Sistani's home in Najaf. "We are with him 100% because elections is the best way to establish a state that serves the interests of its people."

Shiites, who were suppressed under ousted President Saddam Hussein, account for roughly 60% of Iraq's 25 million population. They seek a stronger role in the new government.

Brahimi, 70, whose four decades of peacemaking in hot spots from Lebanon to Afghanistan have made him a revered U.N. figure, is expected to hold talks with Iraqis and the Coalition Provisional Authority in order to broker deals over the next week.

The U.N. has conducted scores of similar preelection assessments worldwide, but the Iraq mission is unique because of its sense of urgency and the worldwide scrutiny surrounding it.

One key objective is to determine whether it would be possible to hold elections by May to meet a June 30 deadline to transfer authority from the U.S. to a new transitional assembly. Many experts doubt that legitimate elections could take place by then, given Iraq's lack of voter rolls and security.

As a result, there's a growing consensus that the U.N. team will be asked to broker a political compromise between the United States, with its caucus plan, and many Shiites, who would presumably prevail in direct elections.

Much more at link

It'll be interesting to see if this will play out. After the initial election, it seems likely that with the next election cycle the Shiite clerics will have the majority of the power. That's of course if any form of compromise can be presently worked out.

You have to keep your eye squarely on the ball. What was that about Bartlett saying that the goalposts were being moved? :)