I don't have anything useful to say about the Sadrist clashes with coalition forces in Iraq yesterday. Clearly this is potentially very bad news. I wish I had a good idea for what the coalition provisional authority (SCA) could do about it.

I toyed with the idea that, since Abdul Aziz al Hakim and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) stand to lose their very strong position is Muqtada al Sadr bcomes stronger through a conflict martyrdom vicious circle, that SCIRI and the coalition could work together to contain the trouble. After a tenth of a second of reflection, I realised that this was a terrible idea. If the SCIRI co-operates with the CPA , they will lose support for siding with foreigners against Iraqi Shi'ites. I think the best way that the CPA and SCIRI could help each other is to say rude things about each other for a while.

So I fall back on Ayatollah Ali al-Hussaini al Sistani. I think he might be able to prevent a slide into chaos by issuing a Fatwa against violence and violent protest. Given how angry he is with the CPA over the provisional constitution, he might not be willing to do this. If he does and is ignored, Iraq is cooked.

Finally, he is not immortal.

The clashes seem to have been triggered by the arrest of Mustafa Yaqubi. Some reports are that he is accused of the murder of Seyyed Abdul Majid al Khoie who was, like al Sadr, the son of a grand Ayatollah who was presumably killed by Saddam Hussein. I recall that soon after the murder of al Khoie, armed men surrounded the house of Ayatollah al Slstani who, extraordinarily, was not home. That is, I suspect that the Sadrists are capable of threatening or even using violence against Ayatollah al Sistani.

Basically, I think Iraq has only one Ayatollah al Sistani and that he shouldn't argue with violent Iraqis unless it is absolutely necessary.

So my new plan is just to wait and hope it all blows over.

[Update] On the other hand, this is very good news. Notice this is being done by a State Department employee, that it is based on ration card "registration to vote" and that the guy who just did it admits that the ration card system is imperfectly democratic.

"In the Dhi Qar elections the card allowed a husband and wife to vote if they also brought their identity documents. The ration card was stamped in red or blue for each gender, making it possible for a wife to come earlier or later than her husband.

"It's not universal suffrage," said Mr Bradley, as he watched local judges check voters' identities inside the school entrance in Tar. "The polling places are only in the town centre. Some families are larger than others and they all get two votes. But it's free and fair to a certain degree." "

Oh I get it, that is the problem with ration cards 1 husband + 1 wife get 2 votes, 1 husband + 2 wives get 2 votes. Not democratic I admit. On the other hand don't you think that maybe it is a little weird that Ayatollah al Sistani was arguing for elections based on ration cards and the CPA was arguing they were impractical and hinting that al Sistani wanted elections immediately because they would lead to Shi'ite rule by discriminating against polygamists beauxe of course westernised Iraqis are all polygamists.

I mean is the Bush-Bermer team even dumber than I thought ?