Iran's Underwar

I really like that. "Underwar." You heard it here first.

Refers of course to Iran's coming victory in the January elections in Iraq. I'll be spending my Christmas holiday practicing my most annoying "told you so" voice.

Ignatius has this to say about it in the Washington Post today.

Money quote:

Iran is about to hit the jackpot in Iraq, wagering the blood and treasure of the United States. Last week an alliance of Iraqi Shiite leaders announced that its list of candidates will be headed by Abdul Aziz Hakim, the clerical leader of the Iranian-backed Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. This Shiite list, backed by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, is likely to be the favorite of Iraq's 60 percent Shiite majority and win the largest share of votes next month.

Not so money quote:

Given the stakes for the United States in these elections, you might think we would quietly be trying to influence the outcome. But I am told that congressional insistence that the Iraqi elections be "democratic" has blocked any covert efforts to help America's allies. That may make sense to ethicists in San Francisco, but how about to the U.S. troops on the ground?

Yes, those damned San Fransisco liberals, with their ethics and their insistence on actual democracy. And that damned liberal congress . . . wait-- Huh?

If this guy wasn't a staunch Cambridge-born liberal, I'd think we were seeing the beginnings of Rove's new emergency talking points: "Quick! Democracy is a liberal value again! Democracy is a liberal value again!"

That does beg the question, then: why does Ignatius make this odd statement? Is he kidding? Is this supposed to be Leftist tongue-in-cheekery? Does he really think the troops on the ground would be happier knowing that the democracy and the elections they're dying for should be rigged? My guess is, he's trying to have his argument slice both ways-- democracy is a liberal value, but look at me and my gutsy not-so-San Fransisco call for realpolitik subversion!

Well, for what it's worth, here's how he wraps things up, and I think he's mostly right on:

Iraq's Shiite majority deserves its day in the sun, after decades of oppression, and the January elections should endorse the reality of majority rule. But future historians will wonder how it happened that the United States came halfway around the world, suffered more than 1,200 dead and spent $200 billion to help install an Iraqi government whose key leaders were trained in Iran. Our Iraq policy may be full of good intentions, but in terms of strategy, it is a riderless horse.