How the election in Iraq seems to change everything ever so slightly

Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 7 February 2005

Quick catching up. Rest of day will be spent planning last full chapter, which I write this week.

Couple of articles with the truly startling (for some) analysis that the Iraq elections didn't trigger a load of violence but instead appear to be moving the masses of Iraqis over the hump of their resentment to the U.S. forces on site. First one ("Suddenly, It's 'America Who?'" by Dexter Filkins, NYT, 6 Feb 05, p. WK1) basically says that after the election there is this growing sense among ordinary Iraqis that the blame from here on out sits with themselves and their own government--now elected:

"We have no electricity here, no water and there's no gasoline in the pumps," said Salim Mohammad Ali, a tire repairman who voted in last Sunday's election. "Who do I blame? The Iraqi government, of course. They can't do anything."

Asked about the American military presence here, Mr. Ali chose his words carefully.

"I think the Americans should stay here until our security forces are able to do the jobs themselves," Mr. Ali said, echoing virtually every senior American officer in Iraq. "We Iraqis have our own government now, and we can invite the Americans to stay."

Just words? How about the second story ("Iraqis Cite Shift in Attitudes Since Vote: Mood Seen Moving Against Insurgency," by Doug Struck, WP, 7 Feb 05, p. A1), where Iraqi government officials say that tips on insurgents from the public are way up since the election?

No one's pretending the violence is going to end any time soon, just that a shift in identification has begun:

"They saw what we did for them in the election by providing safety, and now they understand this is their army and their sons," said Sgt. Haider Abdul Heidi, a National Guardsman wearing a flak jacket at a checkpoint in Baghdad.

Yes, we should expect the Shiites to push to make Islam the fundamental basis of their country ("Top Iraq Shiites Pushing Religion In Constitution: Islam as National Faith," by Edward Wong, NYT, 6 Feb 05, p. A1). There's no surprise in that. The U.S. wasn't exactly shy about such declarations as "In God We Trust" on our money and so on. The Shiites just want to declare their trust in Allah to push certain aspects of Islamic law. Getting into a fight with them over that makes little sense. The Shiites can have a government based in Islam and still not be a scary theocracy like Iran. After all, isn't Israel similarly defined by its religion? We shouldn't worry over this, because it's not our problem to fix ("U.S. Officials Discount Risk of Iran-Style Rule: Cheney, Rumsfeld See Iraqi Shiites as Distinct," by Bradley Graham, WP, 7 Feb 05, p. A18).

The Bush White House is planning a more low-key presence and approach to the region under Rice's tutelage, and that's okay. The issues there are theirs to solve, not ours, but I hope that low key doesn't mean we don't seek something besides stalemate with Iran, because I don't think we can shut them out forever and expect them to stand by while the Big Bang works itself out slowly over time.