An op-ed in yesterday's New York Times gets it pretty close to exactly right.
If the nascent government is able to devise a constitution by mid-next month, then they're probably missing the point. A constitution cannot be written in a few weeks by a handful of politicians at a conference table; creating a founding document requires the long ordeal of reaching political compromise and building trust. Given the intensity of conflict in Iraq, it is unlikely that broad political consensus can be achieved any time soon.
What Iraqi politicians need more than anything right now is to learn to trust each other. If the Sunnis remain convinced they'll never get a decent shake under Shiite rule, why shouldn't they fight? If the Kurds believe they're better off without the rest of Iraq, why not let the country fall apart? If the Shiites think they will never be able to rule the country peacefully, why shouldn't they do what they can to rule by other means?
At the moment, I'm cautiously optimistic, as there seem to be some movement by all three groups. The Iraqis are groping for trust in the fog of war, and it would be too easy to simply give up. Thier, director of Stanford's Project on Failed States, advises Iraqis to take the six-month delay allowed to them under the Transitional Administrative Law, and that's not a bad idea. I know some members of the committee and its subcommittees are grumbling that the timelines laid out in the TAL—Aug. 15 approval, Oct. 15 referendum and a Dec. 15 national election—are more in America's interests than Iraq's, so why not a delay?
If Iraq's leaders end up with a constitution that looks good on paper but doesn't reflect a real political agreement, they will have failed. Not only will the document be ineffective, but the Iraqi people will see the inability to reach a real compromise as a failure of the government as a whole. That way lies civil war.
People in the Iraqi government and the U.S. embassy have all told me that the constitution is key to ending the insurgency, although they seem to differ on the timeframe. But the majority of those fighting this insurgency, Ba'athists and former regime guys, have never shown a fondness for constitutionalism before. The Ba'athists have launched two coups since 1958, and might be planning a third, so simply having a new national charter is not going to get these guys to lay down their arms. The jihadis will never stop fighting because for them, the fight is the victory and martyrdom a bonus. What's the alternative, though? The insurgency is not going to be defeated militarily because the very actions used to “kill bad guys,” as the military likes to say makes more “bad guys.” At the moment, the political process is all that's left.
Technorati Tags: Current Affairs, Iraq, News and Politics
I just hope they get it done. It’ll be one helluva an accomplishment if those guys can get their collective act together. I mean, c’mon, the Middle East isn’t exactly known for true comprimise.
The insurgency is not going to be defeated militarily because the very actions used to “kill bad guys,” as the military likes to say makes more “bad guys.” At the moment, the political process is all that’s left.
This doesn’t sound like much more than hoping for a Deus Machina.
But God helps them who help themselves.
Sorry, that should have read: Deus Ex Machina.
Welcome aboard, Billmon. It’s good to see you. And you hit the nail on the head, as usual.
It’s great to hear from you, Billmon.
Good to have you back in the sandbox, Chris.
BTW: eds. nitpick - can something be “pretty close” to “exactly”?
See ya at CPIC.
The constitution will fail. Iraq is headed for a very bloody civil war and foolish optimism can’t stop it.
“Ca-, Ca-, Caliban,
Get a new master,
be a new man…”
Browning, “Caliban Upon Setebos”
Folk who believed that those deeply opposed to the invasion, must have based their opposition on petty party politics and/or general negativism, may begin now to see what ACTUALLY inspired the frustration and dread. If not now, they will before this adventure winds down, I’m afraid.
This wasn’t simply a mistake, a few missteps and bungles, or a matter of some less-than-perfect intel. This was wild, overreaching arrogance, flying in the face of realities. Iraq is the same deck of cards - just reshuffled, with room made for a couple dozen heretofore absent jokers (the jihadists).
We deposed Saddam’s regime, all right. But it’s still Iraq, Jake.
And Godot, ain’t coming (it’s more akin to ‘Waiting on Godot’, it strikes me, than hoping for that ‘deus ex machina’.
Saddam had exactly the same problem. Disparite groups who all detest one another and who all have their own agendas. The Brits hacked this bit of territory out of the old Ottoman Empire for reasons of their own. Probably wanted the oil provinces as spoils of war. Maybe one solution would be to incorporate the Shiite part into Iran and the Sunni into Saudi Arabia. But what the hell do you do with the Kurds? Reconstitute the old Kurdistan? That would be the fairest solution but would upset Turkey, Syria and Iran. Still, wasn’t Poland recreated after being partioned. Admittedly by the victors after a world war. Czechs and Slovaks went their own seperate ways as did the Bosnians, Slovenes and Serbs after Yugoslavia disintegrated.
The Iraqi government was put into place under an occupation. The country is still under occupation. Thus, in my view this is an anti-occupation resistance movement rather than simply an insurgency. As long as the U.S. maintains permanent bases, seeks to control the flow of oil, and pushes to privatize Iraqi industry, there will be NO solution because the process right now amounts to the false validation of a puppet government beholden to the U.S.
Each passing day of the occupation has brought more animosity, greater civil strife, and more death. The whole process of legitimizing occupation is rotten to the core.
There is an alternative. Acknowledge that this was about greed, corporate self- interest, and a conservative ideology gone badly wrong. Acknowledge the mistakes made. Pull the American troops back to their bases. Let the Iraqis run their own towns and cities. End the repressive occupation of Falluja and others cities. Hold an international conference in which the U.S. relinquishes control of the country to the United Nations. Set a date for withdrawal and many Sunni may decide to participate in a political process. If not, face the deaths of thousands (and probably tens of thousands) more people.
Admit the gross violations of human rights and impeach the f—-g criminals who unleashed this despicable war.
I was in the US Senate Armed Services committee meeting last month, and Senators Levine and Collins both talked about how the Iraqis need to stick to their timetable in the political processes, because if they don’t, there will be repercussions for US troops in Iraq. They both suggested that the US have repercussions for the Iraqis if they don’t get the constitution written on time.
No one in the room mentioned (or seem to notice) that it is not “democracy” if we are telling them what to do and when to do it.
What a flipping evil mess they have made. I am referring to the Bush administration and our elected officials.
I wrote an editorial about this meeting, and it will be in the paper next week. I will post it on my blog
http://dancewater.blogspot.com
My blog is an anti-war site, don’t go there if you don’t want to hear about that.
Buncha crap.
Here’s an excerpt of an interview by Austin Bay’s blogmeister:
“The terrorists have yet to win an engagement above the platoon level,” Gen. Abizaid said … Terrorist bombs are made for TV, and terrorist beheadings are made for the Internet. …
Winning the global war against Islamist terror ultimately means curbing the terrorists’ strategic combat power, and that means ending the media magnification of their bombs.
In other words — the battle with the MSM is the REAL fight. It’s not just a sideline or contributing factor. It’s the whole thing, in the end.