To: FaultLine who wrote (123710 ) 1/25/2004 11:02:05 PM From: Sam Respond to of 281500 certainly hope the women (and men) are able to overturn decision No. 173. Yes, well, it will really depend on people like Sistani, and what they really want. That isn't at all clear to me--reports have him saying different things at different times, and it isn't clear whether that is because he really is saying those different things, or people are just attributing different responses to him. I have heard radio interviews with people from Iraq who maintain that large numbers of Shia are perfectly happy to wait for the US to jail and/or murder as many Sunnis/Bathists as possible over the next few months, then will take over themselves, establishing an Islamic Republic. I don't know if this is true or not, but it is at least plausible. I also don't know if the US can possibly jail or kill enough Sunnis to permit this to occur. And what would the Kurd response be? Will the Shia keep the Americans around to be their mercenaries? Who will be controlling whom? Riverbend's reflections and questions are apt and to the point. Seeing some of the GC members give press conferences these days, reminds me of the time I went to watch my cousin's daughter 'graduate' from kindergarten. They had about 20 kids up on this little stage with their teacher, Miss Basma, standing benevolently in their midst. As long as she was on the stage, they all stood correctly; simultaneously reciting a poem they had learned just for the occasion. The moment Miss Basma stepped down, there was a stampede- 20 students rushed for the only microphone on the stage all at once, grappling to see who could reach it first and drown out the other voices with their own. Now we face a similar situation. Miss Basma- er, I mean Bremer- has been off the stage (in Washington and New York) and there has been a rush to grab the metaphorical microphone. For example, while the decision on family law seems almost definite, Talabani adamantly denies it… other members only reluctantly discuss it. The question is, even if the personal status laws aren't going to be subjected to change now- immediately- what about the future? What does that say about 6 months from now when Bremer's signature isn't necessary? Whatever happens, it won't be good for the US. My guess is that the self-styled conservatives who supported this action and who were sneering back in April/May/June 2002 about how quiescent the "Arab street" was will have reason to take back their complacency. But they won't do so. Indeed, if a Democrat is in office at the time, he will be blamed for whatever is happening if it is bad, just as Bush will be praised for whatever is happening if it is good, no matter who is in office.