Who is the next alternative for Baghdad?

[Alborz Taha]

There is no doubt today that al-Maliki's time in office is getting over. During last year, he proved very skillfully that the only thing he is not concerned about is the security and tranquility in Iraq. During this period, the violence and slaughter of innocent citizens climbed to its maximum. The militias found enough latitude to infiltrate into all governmental organizations, and in fact, rule the country. If not all, most of these militias are one way or the other associated with Iran, and have paved the path for Iran's hidden occupation of Iraq.
Maliki's background shows that he has had close ties with Iran's Quds force, and commanded terrorist battalions when he was in Iran before Saddam's fall.
Today, even Bush is not willing to back him, and yet, what still delays his dismissal is that Bush refrains to acknowledge that investing on him was a grave mistake from the outset. In fact it has been betting on a dead horse.

The question today, however, is what are the alternatives for the future of Iraq?
Before thinking of individuals, the current political situation in Iraq suggest two main alternatives for post-Maliki's era. Each of these alternatives illustrates a totally different future for Iraq and the Middle East region:

One alternative is the continuation of the policy that started with Ibrahim Ja'fari, and was 'promoted' to al-Maliki. Due to its affiliation to Tehran, it has been basically in the service of Iran's government and to pursue its policies in Iraq. This alternative was born with the foundation of Islamic republic, and its ultimate goal has been to establish an Islamic fundamentalist empire in the region. To this end, Iraq has been the first and vital target. Because of its nature, this alternative can advance only via terrorism, turmoil and violence. Therefore, peace, calm and democracy are dreadful threats for that.

The other alternative, which has been created vis-à-vis the first alternative, is a young alternative with completely different characteristics. Contrary to the first one, it believes in democracy and participation of all sectors of the society in governing the country. Its deeply against sectarianism and religionism. The period of Ayad Allawi as prime minister was a sample of this alternative in power when the situation in Iraq was more peaceful than any other time.

The first alternative has the support of Iran. If the second one lacks support, it cannot resist before the Iran-backed conspiracies.

The gravest mistake of Bush's administration was to invest on al-Maliki, an anti-democratic alternative, to establish stability in Iraq.

These days, the political circles usually offer two figures as alternatives for the future of Iraq: Ayad Allawi and Adel Abdul Mehdi.

Because of his close relations with Iran, Abdul Mehdi undoubtedly belongs to the anti-democratic alternative. He is the second figure in Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq(SCIRI) that was formed in Iran in is in very close interrelations with the Quds force that is going to be inserted in the terror list.
On the other side, Ayad Allawi is the most suitable representative of the democratic alternative. Despite being a Shiite, he has never been a puppet of Iran. During his time in office, Iraq lived its most democratic era.

Today, deciding about the future of Iraq and the region goes through selecting one of these alternatives: Adel Abdul Mehdi or Ayad Allawi

[LSD]

The question today, however, is what are the alternatives for the future of Iraq?

That's a very broad question with an incredibly complicated answer, although certainly we could agree that any basis for a peacible solution in Iraq must begin with the withdrawal of the American and allied occupaiton forces?

I think the issue of who should be prime minister is of lesser concern, not to mention of much lesser permanence, given the demonstrated tendency of rapid turnover in the "new Iraq".

Besides, the reason that "political circles usually offer two figures as alternatives" is because those two figures are spending millions of dollars to make them do so.

Allawi may well be secular, but he's also corrupt, brutish, and a rather shabby administrator. I hardly see how he could "ride in to the rescue" as it were. We do both agree, however, that the Supreme Islamic Council is a dangerously reactionary force which is deeply anti-democratic and anti-worker.

I'm curious, though, as to your apparent faith in Allawi's abilities, given both his record and the form that his leadership would have to take within an occupied government.

And since you're a new member, what are your political views in more general terms, not only with regards to Iraq? You're certainly not under any oligation to categorize yourself, but it would be interesting to hear your viewpoints.

[bootleg42]

I'm sorry Alborz Taha, but it seems like you're just repeating bourgeoisie news theater about Iraq. We really don't care about bourgeoisie news theater.

[Noah]

I'm sorry bootleg42 but most Iraqis will agree that Ayad Allawi was the much more able to solve problems and control the country than that little poo called Maliki and definitely a better alternative to any Muslim extremist.