Maliki Leads in Iraqi Election: Voters See Party as 'Most Expedient Way to End the Occupation'

By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!. Posted February 3, 2009.

The Awakening militias, which have been armed and funded by the Americans -- I mean, America's main military proxies inside of Anbar have publicly said that if they do not win these elections, there will be a revolution in Anbar. Basically, the U.S. has set up a system of tribal sheikhs who control Anbar for them, who have massive military and economic power, hundreds of millions -- tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in reconstruction contracts and a 100,000-member-strong militia that's under their control. And if they don't get political power through these elections to match their economic and military power, then they say that there's going to be trouble.

AG: And the significance of Maliki winning?

RR: It is remarkable. Dawa was a minor party. Maliki was chosen as a compromise prime minister, because all of the major Shiite factions couldn't decide on who they wanted to have in power. He was seen by many as a puppet of ISCI, the Islamists who were the major power brokers in the last elections.

But because of pressure from the Sadrists, both political pressure inside parliament and also a constant military pressure as an armed resistance outside, he was forced to take a very strong line in negotiating with the Americans and get a SOFA agreed to -- Status of Forces Agreement -- that was signed in December that is remarkable, that basically appears on paper to be an end to the occupation. All of the U.S. bases will be removed. The U.S. can never use Iraq as a platform from which to launch attacks on other parts of the region. They don't get the oil. They don't get immunity for their contractors.

If the letter of this agreement is actually, you know, put in place, it will mean what the Sadrists and all of the more militant wings on the outside have called for anyway. So whereas the Americans used to say, or said in 2005, every vote is a vote in favor of the American presence and for the occupation, in this case the insurgency has managed to change the frame so much inside of internal Iraqi politics that a vote for Maliki looks like a vote against the occupation and a vote for the Americans to get out as quickly as they can.

AG: David Enders, you've been covering Iraq for years now. What is the significance of all of this? What are the prospects now for Iraq?

David Enders: Well, I think it's exactly right, especially the issue of the Status of Forces Agreement. Maliki has managed to really make himself look good, in a sense, in negotiating with the Americans, and I think people have responded to that. He's also, at the same time, been able to use the American military to bring, behind the Iraqi army, stability to both Basra and Baghdad, and people are responding to that.

Any Iraqi on the street will say, if you ask them, "What do you want?" the first thing they say is security, then electricity, then a job. And so, any sense that any of that is returning certainly helps Prime Minister al-Maliki's case. Now, that's Baghdad, Basra, central and southern Iraq.

Northern Iraq, the three Kurdish governorates didn't vote. There were no elections in Kirkuk, which is contested between Arab tribes and Kurdish tribes, and there's the ongoing debate within the Iraqi government over whether Kirkuk should become part of the basically autonomous Kurdish region. And at every chance the Iraqi government has had to legislate that, they've been unable to do so. In 2004, with the governing council, the issue was tabled. In the constitution in 2006, the issue was tabled. And again, the issue has been tabled, and you have increased threats of violence. You're still seeing sectarian violence -- or rather, ethnic violence in Mosul, the second-largest city in the country. There's still fighting going on there. So, even though there are some very positive aspects to what happened this weekend, there's a lot left unresolved.

AG: And overall, the power of the Kurds now?

DE: I think it's been weakened. I think their position has been considerably weakened by al-Maliki's apparent popularity. And in addition to the Status of Forces Agreement, Maliki has presented himself as a nationalist, to some extent, and is calling for a unified Iraq. And it certainly seems that calls for dividing the country into a loose federalist state, which, according to some observers, was entirely inevitable a couple years ago and especially with the gains made by the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution and the Kurdish parties in the 2005 elections, that seemed like a distinct possibility. Now it seems that forces that would keep Iraq intact are growing in power.

AG: The reaction to the election of Barack Obama?

DE: Was very muted. Sheikh Aifan, actually, who we followed around in Fallujah, sort of enjoys having his picture taken with American politicians, and he's done very well for himself, becoming essentially the U.S. point man in the city. He had a picture with Barack Obama before the election, actually, and we said, "Well, what do you think of Obama?" He said, "Foreign policy, American foreign policy doesn't tend to change, regardless of the president." And I think most Iraqis feel that way. I didn't really talk to any Iraqis who seemed to think that there was going to be a significant change. I think Bush was already sort of forced into a position of negotiating this agreement that was not what the White House had set out to negotiate. And probably no matter who was elected, we'd be moving toward a pullout.

See more stories tagged with: iran, iraq, sadr city, barack obama, blackwater, surge, kurds, baghdad, mosul, fallujah, awakening councils, nouri al-maliki, dawa, iraq occupations, iraqi elections, kut, diwaniyah, amara, muthana, nasiriyah, sheikh aifan, rick rowley, david enders, bucca

Amy Goodman is the host of the nationally syndicated radio news program, Democracy Now!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »