Iraqis, both Sunni and Shia, are increasingly defining themselves as Iraqis, that is to say Arabs, rather than Sunnis or Shia. Their growing rejection of clericalism and preference for secular government was noted recently by Amir Taheri in the Wall Street Journal:
Only the next general election in 2009 could reveal the true strength of the political parties, since it will not be contested based on bloc lists. Frequent opinion polls, however, show that support for avowedly Islamist parties, both Shiite and Sunni, would not exceed 25 percent of the popular vote.
That finding is supported by the sense of those interacting regularly with individual Iraqis outside the Green Zone and provincial offices. The great challenge in 2008 will be harnessing these growing sentiments through provincial elections and preparing for new parliamentary elections in 2009.
Much will be made of Maliki meeting with Ahmadinejad this week from the crowd that thinks that we should talk anytime to anyone without any conditions. These anti-war types really believe Iran is the major beneficiary of defeating Saddam. That they think Maliki is essentially showing that Iraq is Iran's poodle is perhaps a revealing insight into their thinking about what our talks with enemies should accomplish.
Maliki knows that Iran supports killers in Iraq and isn't perhaps completely sure that America will continue to sufficiently support Iraq in 2009. Maliki is hedging for the long run and trying to get short-term benefits, too. And you'd think that those Americans who oppose the war and think we should talk to the Iranians without any preconditions would be a little more understanding.
I'm sure that Ahmadinejad thinks that he is paving the way for the mass of pro-Iranian Iraqis to deliver Iraq to Iran. That didn't work out in the 1980s war. My guess is that Iran will be affected far more by Iraqi democracy than Iraq will be affected by Iranian jihadi thinking.
We are winning in Iraq. Iran is losing. Don't be confused about that.
