If the early returns hold up, the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) will cruise to victory in Iraq's elections. What is the United Iraqi Alliance? It is a coalition of 22 parties, nearly all of which explicitly refer to Islam in their names. But the victors are going to form a secular government, really they are. I know it's true because they said so in the New York Times.

C'mon, folks. Do such UIA parties as Islamic Master of the Martyrs Movement, Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Hezbollah al-Iraq, or Islamic Virtue Party sound secular to you? Like many things comforting--daydreaming of lottery riches or imagining Marcia Brady's crush on you--the notion of a secular (in the way Westerners understand the term) postwar Iraq doesn't conform to present reality.

To be fair, many political parties in Western democracies refer to Christianity in their names (e.g., the Christian Democrats). But they don't insist on trading the secular code for Biblical law. Call me a cynic, but something tells me that UIA parties like, say, the Hezbollah Movement of Iraq, aren't into the whole tolerance and pluralism thing.

Iraqis are now free. There is nothing to discuss anymore about Iraq. Now let's have a national discussion about some very important and inciteful things I've noticed in the movie Groundhog Day.

Speaking of jumbo shrimp, here's one hidden in Dan's post: Islamic Revolution. I guess that means they revolt until everyone "submits"?

tsk tsk tsk! You still havent offered any evidence that these parties will be taking their cues from the Mullahs.

You might as well be living in the 1960s, trumping up charges that JFK will be taking orders from the Pope.

Try harder next time.

I think Dan is fulfilling that vital conservative role as Cassandra, being skeptical of the grand hopes for the future treasured by the idealistic. Of course the outcome of the "experiment" in democracy in Iraq is yet to be determined, I for one am not yet convinced that a Shia dominated Iraq necessarily thus becomes a threat to us. But it is a possibility and one that should be carefully watched.

Likewise, it seems contradictory that the neocons and their fans on this site (Ben-T above for one) seem to be determined to overthrow the government of Iran by invasion if necessary, but seem to be ignoring the fact that they may have provided a democratic means for Iraq to form the exact same kind of government as exists in Iran. There seems to me to be a real disconnect there.

We are of course, confident that the Iraqi people will, given the chance to sample between Dictatorship/Theocracy, and Democracy, choose to live in a Democratic state. Your logic would outline a world in which Shia are seemingly unwilling to live in anything except a Shia-dominated theocracy.

Ok, granted we shouldn't assume that the Iraqis will vote for a theocracy, but I'd like to hear reasons from the optimists (like Ben-T) that justify their _confidence_ that the Iraqis will choose non-theocracy.

We are confident they will choose democracy because every human on Earth prefers the concept of having choices. They have clearly had their fill of dictatorship, first with an oppressive, unpopular Iraqi king, and then with a Stalinist dictator. They have an inherent desire for democracy like all humans do. However you should also remember that since the assertion that the Iraqi will elect a theocracy is not mine, neither is the burden of proof. It is up to YOU to offer evidence that they WILL choose theocracy.

Ben, I think you underestimate the power of culture. It's often been asked, if so many decent, everyday Muslims are appalled by terrorism, why so many of them are silent instead of protesting what others do to their faith? The answer lies in Islam itself - to be submissive to the will of Allah is the greatest good, and freedom, being easily perverted to other goals, is often an obstacle and not an aid. Therefore it is not as preferable to some. Many thus remain silent because, according to their scale of values, it is the more virtuous course. Disagree? I daresay they do, but it's not good form to do it out loud.

Much of what I read from Iraq is promising regarding the attitudes of the people and their hopes for the new elections; I'm glad they've been held and I hope the transfer of power is peaceful. I want them to prosper in freedom. Still, I'm... well, holding my breath is too much to say, but I'm aware that we are unlikely to see a Western republic. The Middle Eastern version is definitely an improvement over what they had, for all concerned parties, and if that's all we get, I'm content.

A cultue of Islam is not necessarilly a culture of hatred, it is false to say it is. If you need evidence that democracy is important to the Arab people, look no farther than the elections in Afghanistan and Iraq. The ideas we are promoting are in action and are working. Meanwhile your pessimistic vision is built on baseless conjecture that lacks evidence in the real world. That for some reason the Iraqis or Afghanis will vote for their own enslavement, or that they cannot handle democracy.

I believe it is in fact you who may be underestimating the grave danger that maintaining the Middle East's pre-9/11 status quo poses to the United States,her people, and her interests.

Which

You need to calm down, Ben, you may pop a vessel or something. Do I really need to post quotes from a comment that you can easily scroll up and re-read? (Or, in this case, read?)

I did not ONCE say "culture of hatred." I said that Islam emphasizes submission to God as the supreme good; this is amply-documented. The whole point of human freedom is that we can choose badly. Some people see that and say that choice itself is therefore bad. They retreat from it and direct their souls to a different goal. I'm not pessimistic, but I need only look around myself every day (and sometimes, in the mirror) to see dozens of examples of this.

As a result of this influence, I think the form of the democracy in Iraq shall certainly not be a carbon-copy of the parliamentary form we're accustomed to. But I then said that this version of democracy is much preferable to what was there before. How this becomes an endorsement of the pre-9/11 status quo is beyond the logic of mortals. I'm glad we went, I'm glad we're doing so well, I'm glad the people are free and beginning to choose for themselves. This doesn't mean they'll make the same choices we would make in the same situation. Nor would a lack of bicameral legislature make the new Iraqi government unwelcome.

"Choice" seems to be the thing human love most, according to Ben T's view. I don't think so. I think this seems "obvious" only to people who have no deep convictions. If you have deep convictions, then you realize that some choices are wrong. And if that's true, then some choices should not be offered to people.

Choice, after all, is not an end it itself. It is a means to the thing being chosen. So why would they prefer choice, if they get to eliminate all choices but the right one. If the choice is between choice and God's law, let's not be surprized to see them choose God's law.

Okay Brigid so here goes. Since choices arent important Ill take them away, after all some are wrong.

The choice to take part in political dissent is wrong, you no longer have it.

The choice to own and bear arms is wrong, you may no longer make it.

The choice to write a column criticizing your nation's policies is wrong, you may no longer make it.

The choice to vote against your glorious leader is wrong, you may no longer make it.

Any more of those unimportant choices you need taken away?

oh and nightfly. I assure you I am in no danger of popping any vessels.

I expect to see Iraq be a democracy with strong Islamic roots, as we are a democracy with strong Judeo-Christian roots. I never implied Iraq would be America Jr, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with this.

You did not say Islam is a culture of hatred, but many posters have implied here that Islam is a block to democracy, or arabs will have more trouble handling democracy that others. I thought I would just take the oppurtunity to address that issue. It was not meant to be an ad hominem.

Ben T -- Stop! Stop! You sound like a muslim!

No, really, Ben T: You seem incapable of suspending your cultural prejudices, specifically the way our culture of "choice" has shaped your prioirities and vision of a good human life.

Your "confidence" that the election will work out your way rests on an inability to imagine any culture that takes religion more seriously than individual "rights" and consumer options.

You seem hell bent on an angry conflict about this. Not sure why. I wasn't trying to insult or attack you, I just disagree with you.

I am confident that the Iraqi people, having lived for centuries under various oppressive forces, and with western forces to guide them, will develop a distinct democracy that has strong roots in the Islamic faith, and respects the basic rights of human beings as well. So far my argument has more evidence to support it, because of the victory of moderates in the Afghan elections, and the success of the Iraqi elections. I do not find it impossible to believe in a culture that does not respect human rights. However I also refuse to subscribe to the belief that Iraq will be a state of oppression, theocracy, et cetera, without a strong convincing case to support this. And for me, the simple fact that Iran exists as a shia theocracy is not enough to believe that the same will happen in Iraq.

Sorry Ben. I took it a little more seriously than was wise. Thanks for going back over what you meant and what you were addressing.