The most recent election has apparently given Ayad Allawi's party/coalition, "Iraqiya," the largest bloc of seats in the Iraqi parliament, which is supposed to mean that, that party will be given the first opportunity to form a ruling coalition, meaning obtaining the agreement of other parties to join it to make up 163 seats or more in the parliament and naming a new Prime Minister, thereby replacing Nouri al-Maliki and his "State of Law " bloc.
"However, on Thursday, the day before the vote results were announced, the prime minister's office quietly went to the Supreme Federal Court, Iraq's highest court, and asked for an interpretation of Article 76, which the court issued speedily — and in Maliki's favor. The court ruled that the president would choose not the leader of the voting bloc with the highest number of seats when the results are ratified, but the leader with the most seats after the new parliament is seated." (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/world/middleeast/28iraq.html)
The following is not hindsight: If the George W. Bush administration had not fully embraced the neocon-Zionist plan but only toppled the Saddam Hussein regime with a very minimum of violence, if Bush had protected the Iraqi museums and document archives, if he had instigated a curfew with full policing, if he had not undertaken de-Ba'athification, if he had not listened to Henry Kissinger and had not sent Paul Bremer to act as viceroy (dictator) making law ("laissez-faire," imperial, corporatist, capitalist) by decree, if he had allowed the Iraqi's to have the much fairer Constitution they had drafted, if he had said that American corporations cannot have Iraq's oil (contrary to his own Presidential Directive) and said that America only wants to partner with the Iraqi people for the mutual benefit of all, if he had seen to it that everyone had enough to eat and a home and electricity and clean water and proper sewage and the like, if he had protected the leading academics, if he had apologized for earlier American transgressions, if he had not executed Saddam Hussein but rather been as fair as possible considering American transgressions and mixed signals in the past, if he had treated the country as a policing matter for the civil authorities and had not sought to dictate while also creating a multi-year vacuum of thoughtful policy and practices, then millions of people would not have died and been made into refugees and the United States would not be so utterly hated in the world. The fact of the matter is that it wasn't even necessary to have removed Saddam Hussein. He was not beyond being reasoned with. Bush didn't try it. He didn't want to. He wasn't capable of it.
It's going to take a long time for the Iraqi people to sort out the mess created by the Bush-43 administration. At the same time, America will be breathing down Iraq's neck to see to it that Sharia never emerges, for if it were to, the oil would once again be out from under America's hegemonic control.
Another party is under Shiite Muqtada al-Sadr. His Iraqi National Alliance is close to Iran and violently fought against al-Maliki's U.S.-backed, Shiite squads that raided Najaf, once al-Sadr's stronghold.
Allawi was once Prime Minister and was backed, and is still backed by the United States occupation. The reason for that is that he's a secularist and somewhat employing Western-style "democracy." He's been a long-time foe of the Ba'athists (the semi-socialist, pan-Arab nationalist, not anti-spiritual party of Saddam Hussein and also in Syria and somewhat in Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt at the time in what has been termed "Nasserism"), of which he was once a member. He now goes along with "free market" economics, which is code for neoliberalism that is the domination of the world by the corporatist, banksters heading the IMF and World Bank that are, in turn, dominated by Wall Street and the City of London (albeit in a weakened condition on the surface at the moment).
Allawi helped the Bush-43 administration lie to the American people and the world about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which had long since been destroyed on account of the U.N. weapons inspection program. Allawi was head of the Iraqi National Accord, which is the group that came up with the infamous lie known as the "45 minutes" repeated by Tony Blair and George W. Bush and others. They deliberately spread the lie that Saddam Hussein had WMD's and could launch an attack on the West, such as London, within 45 minutes of giving the order.
Ayad Allawi was and remains a CIA asset. The general Iraqi people don't have access to the whole story. The American Mainstream Media is also not covering the details. They cut short on giving the background information. In-depth reporting is a thing of the past so that the short attention span of Americans can continue being conditioned into them. That way, the sociopathic leadership can get away with murder.
Here's another link that shed's some light (only some):
That article relies upon David Wurmser, a rabid Zionist and was under Douglas Feith at the Rumsfeld Pentagon. His neocon "credentials" are long. Understand though that Wurmser was writing during the Clinton administration that was not sufficiently Zionist to suit the Likudniks. Also, writing against Allawi was a way of elevating Ahmed Chalabi and Chalabi's group, much more interested in going along with all things Zionist.
You get some sense of this by considering "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," which was an American neocon paper written for Netanyahu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm).
To see how the information can be extremely "managed," consider the Rumfeld Pentagon's "Office of Special Plans" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans). That group used plenty of lies that came directly from Ahmed Chalabi's group.