Wasn't this pretty much....

....a no-brainer?

Iraq's majority Shiite Muslims won nearly half the votes in the nation's landmark Jan. 30 election, giving the long-oppressed group significant power but not enough to form a government on its own, according to results released Sunday.

The Shiites likely will have to form a coalition in the 275-member National Assembly with the other top vote-getters — the Kurds and Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's list — to push through their agenda and select a president and prime minister. The president and two vice presidents must be elected by a two-thirds majority.

"This is a new birth for Iraq," Iraqi election commission spokesman Farid Ayar said while announcing results. Iraqi voters "became a legend in their confrontation with terrorists."

If I recall, this was pretty much what was expected.

Minority Sunni groups, which largely boycotted voting booths and form the core of the insurgency, rejected the election — raising the prospect of continued violence as Iraqis try to rebuild their country.

In an interview with Al-Jazeera television, Mohammed Bashar of the anti-American Association of Muslim Scholars said the fact that there were no international or U.N. monitors in Iraq made him question the figures.

"Those who boycotted the elections are more than those who took part in it," he said. "Boycotting the election does not mean that the boycotter will renounce his rights."

Sounds a lot like the Democrats in our recent election, doesn't it?

The Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance ticket received 4,075,295 votes, or about 48 percent of the total cast, Iraqi election officials said. The Kurdistan Alliance, a coalition of two main Kurdish factions, was second with 2,175,551 votes, or 26 percent, and the Iraqi List headed by the U.S.-backed Allawi finished third with 1,168,943 votes, or about 14 percent.

I think fears of a Shiite theocracy are unjustified. The Shiites seem to have been particularly adept at politics, keeping their people in line before the elections rather than allowing the Sunni "insurgents" and terrorists to ignite a civil war.

Isn't a bit unreasonable to think they would be clumsy enough to try to rule with an iron hand when they need the support of the Kurds just to have the power to get legislation enacted?