What if Fundamentalist Islam wins elections in Iraq?

[Stravo]

Bush has been pressing the upcoming free elections in Iraq. He's been saying that this is the ultimate relaization of freedom in Iraq. (Though thats not why the war drums were banged so incessantly but let's leave that alone for now) The key here is what would/will the adminiistration do if the Al Sadr's of Iraq decide that fighting in the streets won't nearly be as successful as winning in these elections the infidel invaders have set up.

Considering the current trends and polls pointing to Iraqis wanting some sort of Sharia law and a return to basics and fundamentalism the prospect of an Iranian type of government freely elected in the country is not a fantasy or even a far stretch of the imagination.

So what will this say about the efforts in Iraq if we have a fundamentalist government voted in or more darkly would the Bush administration allow such a result in the first place?

[aerius]

You will see the worst game ever of "pass the buck" in the US as the government, whoever is in power, attempts to blame the other party, the military, the Iraqis, the Muslims, and the UN for fucking things up.

[Wicked Pilot]

You're asking 'what if'? The more appropiate question is 'when'. I would imagine it would lead to a good trap door for the administration to pull out when the new Muslim government asks the infadels to leave. We pull out, say it's what the democratically elected government wanted, and we can at least try to believe we saved face.

[Ender]

If Bush is still in charge, I'd expect war again. Gotta pander to the fundie right. Plus I think the "nip the next Taliban in the bud before we have another 9/11" would sell a lot quicker then the WMD thing did, so less backlash. Kerry, I'm not sure.

[Patrick Degan]

Bush: "The terra-ists have hijacked the elections."

[Darth Wong]

So what will this say about the efforts in Iraq if we have a fundamentalist government voted in...

It would prove Bush's supporters wrong, but they should be getting used to that by now.

...or more darkly would the Bush administration allow such a result in the first place?

It's possible that the Bush Administration might allow the result, but they wouldn't allow their bases to be ejected from Iraqi soil. More likely they'd move their bases to relatively uninhabited portions of Iraq, declare them to be necessary for securing the region against further flare-ups and insurgencies, invoke a lot of legalistic bullshit to claim that it's not illegal, and refuse to leave no matter what the Iraqi government says.

[RedX]

More likely they'd move their bases to relatively uninhabited portions of Iraq, declare them to be necessary for securing the region against further flare-ups and insurgencies, invoke a lot of legalistic bullshit to claim that it's not illegal, and refuse to leave no matter what the Iraqi government says.

Hey, it worked for Cuba. Though, personally, I can't see any such results from the elections; Iraq is so much more likely to come apart at the seams than to agree on anything, even fundamentalism. They've got two a Shiite-Sunni mix; that alone garuntees at least one major split in votes.

[Lusankya]

Well, what if they just vote Saddam back in?

http://www.zaman.org/?bl=international& ... 1&hn=12424

That would be hilarious (in a bittersweet kind of way), though it would also make everything seem quite pointless.

[Darth Wong]

Well, what if they just vote Saddam back in?

http://www.zaman.org/?bl=international& ... 1&hn=12424

That would be hilarious (in a bittersweet kind of way), though it would also make everything seem quite pointless.

If they voted Saddam back in, I would immediately try to go to the FOXNews website to see them try to spin-doctor it. Unfortunately, it would be difficult to type in the URL while clutching my sides in laughter.

[Lusankya]

And here's me feeling bad about all the people who died for what would no reason at all.

[frigidmagi]

Something tells me that Al Shar would beat Saddam in the polls.

[Darth Wong]

And here's me feeling bad about all the people who died for what would no reason at all.

Once they're dead, what difference does it make whether there was a reason? This war has been a farce from Day One.

[Lusankya]

I know that. Hell, I don't know a single person in Australia who was fooled by the WMD claims. I think we figured that Howard was trying to get a cookie of some kind from the Americans.

It just becomes a gazillion times more pointless if the "liberated people of Iraq" vote in their "cruel oppressor".

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Well, what if they just vote Saddam back in?

http://www.zaman.org/?bl=international& ... 1&hn=12424

That would be hilarious (in a bittersweet kind of way), though it would also make everything seem quite pointless.

If they voted Saddam back in, I would immediately try to go to the FOXNews website to see them try to spin-doctor it. Unfortunately, it would be difficult to type in the URL while clutching my sides in laughter.

The only thing funnier would be if he won with "99%" of the vote.

[Aaron]

It's possible that the Bush Administration might allow the result, but they wouldn't allow their bases to be ejected from Iraqi soil. More likely they'd move their bases to relatively uninhabited portions of Iraq, declare them to be necessary for securing the region against further flare-ups and insurgencies, invoke a lot of legalistic bullshit to claim that it's not illegal, and refuse to leave no matter what the Iraqi government says.

If I recall didn't the current Iraqi "government" pass a law that says the elected Iraqi government would be unable to eject the US troops.

[tharkûn]

You're asking 'what if'? The more appropiate question is 'when'. I would imagine it would lead to a good trap door for the administration to pull out when the new Muslim government asks the infadels to leave. We pull out, say it's what the democratically elected government wanted, and we can at least try to believe we saved face.

It depends on how the secularists in Iraq play the political game. If they are smart they will use a divide an conqueor approach ... use the Sunni Arabs and Kurds to offset the Shia Arabs and throw in the Turkomen and Christian votes for a bit of variety. Even the Shia Arabs are unlikely to vote as a bloc; you have multiple religious leaders vying for position who appear to hate each other.

If you want to keep the fundies under control you play them against each other. Endlessly dragging out the question of whose Sharia to implement can go a long ways. Nothing is more effective at curbing religious institutionalization than bogging the theocrats down in heated conflict over points nobody else understands nor gives a damn about. The key is if the secularists in Iraq can effectively make one set of religious fundies look scarier to the other set of religious fundies than the secularists look to either.

[Edi]

It's possible that the Bush Administration might allow the result, but they wouldn't allow their bases to be ejected from Iraqi soil. More likely they'd move their bases to relatively uninhabited portions of Iraq, declare them to be necessary for securing the region against further flare-ups and insurgencies, invoke a lot of legalistic bullshit to claim that it's not illegal, and refuse to leave no matter what the Iraqi government says.

If I recall didn't the current Iraqi "government" pass a law that says the elected Iraqi government would be unable to eject the US troops.

A newly elected lawful government would have no obligation to actually consider that "law" valid, and even fif they did, they could just void it.

Edi

[Elfdart]

Funny hypotheticals, folks. But let's be serious: These "elections" (brought to you by the people who brought you Florida 2000) will be fixed like a pro wrestling match.

I suspect that in an honest election, Sadr, Sistani, Saddam, Zarqawi and even Osama would get more votes than the quisling Allawi.