You concluded: "Looking at the Bush administration's strategy since the invasion, designed to keep power in U.S. hands while marginalizing Islamist parties, the elections can only be considered a massive defeat for the administration. Yet the press has been all too willing to accept its disingenuous declarations of victory. As news reports roll in of autocrats from Cairo to Damascus to Teheran quaking in their boots at the prospect of democratization in the Middle East, one more capital should probably be added to that list -- but Washington will likely remain absent" (Seth Ackerman, "Defeated by Democracy," <http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2530>).
I have several questions:
Why did you think that Washington wouldn't be able to work with Islamist parties? Precedents from Afghanistan to Bosnia tell us that religion is hardly an obstacle when it comes to choosing allies and proxies.
Since the elections, has the Iraqi government moved even one step toward independence? As you know, Washington scuttled the Iraqi government's amnesty and national reconciliation plan: <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20060828/044907.html>.
Can this government do anything that Washington doesn't really like?
This February, the United Iraqi Alliance chose Ibrahim al-Jaafari as its candidate for Prime Minister, but the choice was nixed by Washington, who had Sistani persuade Jaafari to withdraw: "U.S. officials sent a message this week to Iraq's senior religious cleric asking that he help end the impasse over forming a new Iraqi government and strongly implying that the prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jafaari, should withdraw his candidacy for re-election, according to American officials" (Nancy A. Youssef and Warren P. Strobel, "U.S. Appeals to Iraq's Top Cleric to Help End Political Impasse," 28 March 2006, <http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/14208086.htm>). It looks like the makeup of the Iraqi government is not at all up to Iraqis. Does it not to you?
Why would the victory of the United Iraqi Alliance, which includes SCIRI, Dawa, and Badr among others, make Tehran unhappy? I can understand an argument that it should make Tehran fear a backlash from those who suspect an increase in its influence in Iraq, but the popularity of Islamist parties in Iraq in itself is no challenge to Tehran, the capital of an Islamic republic, though it may be to Cairo and Damascus, the capitals of (still officially) secular dictatorships.
Having read what you said, as well as what Achcar, Cole, Chomsky, etc. have said, I'd have to say that the Iraqi elections profoundly confused not only Iraqis but also liberals and leftists in the West. -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>