WP: Shiite Politicians' Objections Lead Candidate to Withdraw

Friday, May 28, 2004; Page A19

BAGHDAD, May 27 -- A politically independent Shiite Muslim who had been a top choice of the United States and the United Nations to become Iraq's prime minister withdrew from consideration after objections from formerly exiled Shiite politicians who want the job for themselves, officials involved in the political transition said Thursday.

The politicians' refusal to accept Hussain Shahristani as prime minister has complicated U.S. and U.N. efforts to form an interim Iraqi government to assume limited political authority on June 30, forcing U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi and top U.S. officials to scramble for new candidates. The U.S. occupation authority had hoped to have the government named by Monday, to give appointees a month to work into their new jobs, but U.N. officials said that goal now appears unattainable.

The stand against Shahristani also struck a serious blow to attempts by the United States and the United Nations to fill top positions in the interim government with independents and technocrats instead of politicians, many of whom spent years in exile and enjoy little public support.

The U.S. government funded many exiled opposition politicians during the rule of President Saddam Hussein, and several were appointed to Iraq's Governing Council after Hussein was toppled last year. Because of their unpopularity, however, the occupation authority has sought to minimize their role in Iraq's next government. Yet Shahristani's inability to win their approval illustrates their continuing ability to disrupt U.S. plans for the country's political transition.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61695-2004May27.html

make sure the country is so divided politically that no effective opposition to the military authority is possible.

"The Shiite politicians who opposed Shahristani's appointment included Ahmed Chalabi, a onetime U.S. ally who "

make sure the country is so divided politically that no effective opposition to the military authority is possible.

From the article:

"They feel they are a kind of club, and this was a person who is outside their club," said an Iraqi official close to Shahristani. The official said Shahristani, who had met with Brahimi several times over the past few weeks and was regarded as the U.N. envoy's top choice, talked to Brahimi on Tuesday night "and said he couldn't be a candidate because he cannot get the support of this club."

The Shiite politicians who opposed Shahristani's appointment included Ahmed Chalabi, a onetime U.S. ally who heads the Iraqi National Congress, which had been funded by the Pentagon; Ayad Allawi, the leader of the Iraqi National Accord, which had been supported by the CIA; Adel Abdel-Mehdi of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq; and Ibrahim Jafari of the Dawa party, according to people familiar with the discussions with Brahimi.

Hussain Shahristani was a vocal exile proponent of Saddam having WMD before this was shown by events to be a bogus claim. Does this mean he was a technocrat who was incorrect about a technical issue, or a politician who was pushing a version of reality to further a cause? I can't think of any way of knowing the difference.