Iraqi elections...some reality checks

There are a couple of new articles that cast the light of reality on the elections in Iraq this morning.
Juan Cole has a good rundown on what we know so far. One thing is clear, it wasn't good to be seen as a friend of the US.

One thing seems pretty clear at this point: Iyad Allawi is highly unlikely to be prime minister. His people were putting around rumors that a lot of Sunnis would vote for him, or that the Shiites of the south had turned against the fundamentalist Shiite UIA. The early returns aren't showing either allegation to have been true. As for Ahmad Chalabi, his Iraqi National Accord seems to have sunk without a trace as far as early leaked returns are showing. These "secular" candidates with close ties to the US CIA and Pentagon just are not very popular in Iraq, except among a thin sliver of the urban middle classes to whom US officials and journalists are most likely to talk.

Allawi or Chalabi as prime minister was probably the only hope the Bush administration had for "victory" on their terms, that is control of the economy and a permanent military presence.
Over at the Washington Post Robin Wright has a fairly objective assessment, Bigger Hurdles for U.S. In Iraq's Next Phase.

Iraq's election may be over, but for the United States the trickiest challenges -- and the issues most critical to a timetable for U.S. withdrawal -- are still to unfold over the next nine or 10 months, according to U.S. officials and Middle East analysts.

Iraqis have elected a government but still have to prove that they can rule. Two Iraqi interim governments over the past 18 months left a trail of political bitterness, rampant corruption and chronic inefficiency, with militias playing a growing role as instruments of political coercion, Iraq experts say.

The Bush administration is not in control of it's own destiny in Iraq, it's up to the Iraqis.

Expected to play out over the spring and summer, this post-election phase could be the most delicate yet for Iraq's new leaders. "If they succeed in creating an inclusive structure in virtually any peaceful form, Iraq succeeds. If they fail, the [U.S.-led] coalition fails almost regardless of its military success and that of the new Iraqi forces, and Iraq will move towards division, paralysis, civil conflict and/or a new strongman," said Anthony Cordesman, a Persian Gulf expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The problem is not the insurgents it's the militias.

The danger of political disputes erupting between parties -- many with their own militias -- makes the post-election period the most vulnerable to date, says a new report by Lawrence Korb and Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress. The State Department, which is now in charge of U.S. Iraq policy, is increasingly focused on the question of militias.

"If Iraq falls into civil war, it will be because of militias," said Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy. "The insurgency then becomes a secondary problem."

In blunt language after talks at the White House, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) warned Friday that Iraq has no hope of stability as long as the militias exist. "You cannot have a democracy where you have political parties with armies," said Graham.

We know that many members of the Iraqi Security Forces are militia members which further complicates the issue.

Update
I'm going to move this up from the comments section without comment.

But Robin Wright understates the diffciulty of amending the constitution: a special legislative committee must be appointed and has 4 months to report back a package of proposed changes. These must be approved by an absolute majority of the legislature and then approved by a majority vote at a national referrendum PROVIDED that 2/3 of the voters in 3 provinces don't oppose. This requirement guarantees the Kurds (an overwhelmeing majority in 3 provinces) and Shiites (overwhelming majority in 8 provinces) a veto over proposed amendments.