Only in their delusional dreams

By Ron Beasley

I have thought all along that the dreams of the Bush administration and the neocons for a permanent US presence in Iraq were just as delusional as the we would be greeted with flowers statement before the invasion.

Cernig has discussed the reported position of  Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani here and the right's delusional reaction here.  I decided to check out Juan Cole and get his take on the situation and his thoughts paralleled mine.

I have all along believed that Sistani would ultimately issue a fatwa saying that it was illegitimate for there to continue to be foreign troops on Iraqi soil. I think he would have gone in that direction if Bush had not given in on the January, 2005, elections. But he had been concerned about a resurgence of the Baath, about the rise of the Salafi Jihadis (radical Sunnis, which are in my view mistakenly called 'al-Qaeda'), and about the weakness of the Shiite government.

Ironically, the more success the Americans have in reducing sectarian violence and strengthening the Iraqi state, the more likely it is that Sistani will put his foot down about the foreign military presence.

This likelihood is one reason I find it difficult to take seriously the plans of the Pentagon and the American Right for a long-term US military presence in Iraq. I just don't think the Shiites will put up with it. And, the constant bombardment of the small British contingent down at the Basra airport likely points to the fate of any division of US troops left in the country.

The vast majority of the Iraqis, both Sunni and Shia, don't want foreign troops on there soil - especially foreign troops that kill them with bombs on a regular basis.  The US will eventually be forced to leave but when.  Cole also said this:

Sistani also follows American politics, and he knows that the US is transitioning away from Bush, so he may see an opportunity to push the new administration in a different direction.

Would Sistani attempt to influence the November election itself by turning up the heat before the election in an attempt to keep McCain out of the White House?

Update

I'm going to take exception with commenter Curmudgeon who writes:

If Sistani follows US politics well, he'll know that turning up the heat before the election would give McCain an advantage.

At one time that might have been true but not now.  A majority of Americans think we should get out of Iraq and the only danger they see there is if we stay.  Any up tick in violence will only reinforce that feeling and hurt McCain.  Commenter distributorcap doesn't think that Sistani has any interest in influencing the US elections.  I think this too is wrong.  Sistani wants the US out but with a minimal Iraqi death toll.  The best way to get this is if a candidate who says he wants to pull out is elected.

We read in Politico this morning that some in the GOP think McCain could win in a "blowout".  I can see where it is possible that McCain could win but not if the situation in Iraq further deteriorates.  A McCain win depends on maintaining a the quasi stability through the November election.