BAGHDAD -- Everyone's on tenterhooks today as we wait to see what happens with the Iraqi constitution. Well, everyone in the journalist and NGO communities, the various embassies and the Iraqi government. Your average Iraqi is probably more interested in when the power's coming back on or if the water will run tonight. The constitution is important, yes, but there is a disconnect between what's going on out on the streets and what's happening in the Green Zone that a constitution will do nothing to fix.
In some ways, however, what the constitution says is not so important that it might exist at all. What's interesting is what the process of drafting the charter says about the Iraqi political process. And what it says has some good points and bad ones.
On the one hand, there is no doubt there is a dialogue going on among people in a country where agreement usually comes with the not-so-subtle nudging of a Kalashnikov in the kidneys. People who might not otherwise talk are engaging with one another. They are the leaders and once they figure out how to talk to one another, perhaps they can learn to talk to the Iraqi people -- and then they can lead them.
On the other hand, these same leaders are often the heads of militias and these militias are being used to assassinate political opponents. Everyone's got their theories as to who killed the two Sunni members of the constitutional panel last month, but everyone i've spoken with agrees it was at the hands of a rival militia -- either the Shi'ites' Badr Organization, the Kurdish pesh merga or possibly Ba'athists.
My point is that the talking is the point, not necessarily the constitution. That a political process even exists is a bit of a wonder, and it should be seen as welcome and good news. If a process exists, problems can be addressed, solutions found. The actual form of those solutions is less important than the fact a mechanism to find them is in place.
However, a major weakness of this process is its reliance on the Americans. None of this dialogue would happen naturally without the heavy prodding of the diplomatic community -- primarily the Americans and the British. The two senior members of the Coalition are keeping a smoldering civil war from igniting into full-scale open savagery -- yes, it can get much worse here -- by convincing the Iraqis to keep talking. That's a huge diplomatic achievement and it's not highlighted enough.
The Iraqis are still too divided, too suspicious of one another to take the initiative on their own and get and keep the process going. This, I believe, is a bad sign that the American hope to get the Iraqis on their feet militarily, economically and politically is going to be a long time coming. The Americans are going to be very involved here for a long time. After all, they're not midwifing a political process so much as a political culture.
So, I don't really care what the Iraqi constitution says. Well, I do, but I care more, however, that it's easily amendable because what the Iraqis end up with next year, or even next decade, will probably look very different from the document that comes out today, inshallah. And that's OK. The American Constitution, in many areas, bears little resemblance to the original seven Articles.
That's why the real hard work will come after the drafting of the Iraqi charter. The Iraqis will have the challenge of creating robust, flexible institutions that support democratic dialogue. They need an independent judiciary, for starters, that will enable the settling of the inevitable disputes that will arise over women's rights, the role of Islam and federalism -- all issues that may or may not get kicked down the road with this draft. (We'll see in a few hours.) They need new leaders, frankly, who are not exiles but people who stayed in Iraq during the Saddam regime. And they need a mechanism to come to terms with the Ba'ath Party and the bloody fingerprints it has left on Iraqi society's throat. This is an issue that will not go away, despite the best efforts of Ahmed Chalabi and it will have to absorbed into the body politic somehow.
And how will all of this affect the insurgency? Well, to be honest, in the short- to medium-term, it won't do much. It might keep more Sunni fence-sitters from drifting into the hostile camp, assuming a charter isn't pushed through by Shi'ites and Kurds over vocal Sunni objections. (That would send the signal that dialogue counts far less than sheer numbers -- and why take part in a process that equates demographics with destiny?)
But the hopes that it will be the start of pulling the rug out from under the insurgents is not likely to hold water; the Americans said the elections in January would do that and they didn't. The lull after the elections was not because ballot boxes sapped support; it was a retooling and rearming period after their election offensive. Then they said the same about the formation of the Ja'afari government -- and the insurgency was ready for it. A newly rested and resupplied insurgency has killed more than 4,000 Iraqi civilians and security forces since April 28 when his government was announced. In the same time period, 266 American troops have died.
What usually ends insurgency are two things: time and amnesties. Eventually, insurgencies die out because people get damn tired. This is the 10-12 year span that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld mentioned a couple of weeks ago. And they also end when the existing government, usually with a knife to its throat, offers an amnesty to rebels once all sides reach the point of exhaustion.
My point in all this is not that the nascent political process is pointless -- quite the opposite. My point is that it has to continue and be seen as robust enough without constant American stoking if the insurgency is ever going to get tired enough to accept some kind of deal. It has to be seen by Sunnis, who make up the bulk of the insurgency, as a real dialogue and not just a forum where they stand outside with their noses pressed up against the class looking in. Yes, they boycotted the elections in January, and frankly, their current political flaccidity is their own damn fault. But they have to be shown that it's OK for them to come in an sit down at the table and that they'll get a fair hearing. Otherwise, Iraq's Sunnis might just decide to talk to someone who will listen to them: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. We're already seeing it. Ba'athist cell leaders have are losing foot soldiers to the jihadis. Anything that further alienate secular and potentially moderate Sunnis should be ended.
The talking has to continue -- and the Iraqis have to be the ones to continue it. President George W. Bush can talk about the training of Iraqi security forces all he wants, but it's the training of Iraqi politicians that's even more important. As these guys -- for the most part -- learn to talk to one another, that's where the real progress will be made, not on the battlefield. If there is even a sliver of hope that people can be kept talking, then the Americans, the Iraqis and anyone else involved should move heaven and earth to keep the lips moving and sound coming out. The alternative is a civil war that might make Lebanon's look tame.Technorati Tags: Baghdad, Current Affairs, Foreign Policy, Iraq, Middle East, News and Politics
in the Washington Post yesterday: “…We set out to establish a democracy, but we’re slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic,” said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity…”
So this is what we’ve come to uh? 2 ½ years after the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, a far away Middle-Eastern country that posed no threat to the West whether “imminent” or otherwise- remember Dick Cheney’s sci-fi army of Iraqi drones eager to nuke Cheyenne, Wyoming?
With all its faults (the Baathist regime was certainly no more authoritarian than say Wahhabi-Saudi absolute monarchy, Islamo-fascist Shiite Iran, or Nazi-Kemalist Turkey), the Republic of Iraq under Saddam Hussein was probably the most progressive/secular country in the Arab world: 20% of members of government and high ranking civil servants were women (most of them wore no veil unlike their oppressed sisters in neighbouring countries); the number 2 man in government was Tariq Hanna Azeez, a devout Roman Catholic; most of Saddam’s senior advisers were French and/or UK educated Middle-Eastern Christians; and Iraq was the third largest importer of Johnnie Walker whiskey!
Today, as Rumsfeld’s protégés finalize the drafting of the country’s “constitution”, it has become clear that the new Iraq is fast morphing into a totalitarian Islamic Shiite Bantustan under the tutelage of its Iranian and Hebrew masters.
The Neocon’s “forward leaning foreign policy” turned out to be scam on a gigantic scale: The US government has spent $ 400 billions in taxpayers money and more than 1,900 American kids have lost their life for a useless military adventure…
There’s an old saying in Latin…qui bono, who benefits? Iran and Israel are clearly the only winners: for 2 ½ years, they’ve watched from the sidelines as American soldiers massacred tens of thousands of innocent Sunni Arabs in Fallujah, Tickrit and Baghdad: today, Teheran and Tel Aviv are ready to reap the fruits of the “global war on terror”- a failed policy in need for a change of name… “Colonial proxy war for the advancement of Zion” would be a more fitting appellation.
I agree with Dr Vega How can we trust serial liars and war criminals such as Bush and Blair?
It’s hard to judge from a distance on whether all this hand-wringing over the autonomy of the Iraqi government makes sense. Certainly, Chris, your comments on the infiltrators from Iran make us reflect on the possibility that maybe it would have been just as well to leave Saddam Hussein in place despite all his aggressions and bad behavior. On the other hand, after years and years and years of peace talks, Israel this week is finally getting around to making a move on the Gaza strip. If some significant change for the sake of stability can happen there, in a democratic fashion, why can’t it happen in Iraq? Would the population in a democratically-run Iraq ever willingly submit themselves to undue influence or coersion from from their eastern neighbors? Perhaps the only real option for promoting a transition in Iraq always was a long-term supervision of the process by outside powers, as unappealing as that idea might seem at times to almost all involved. Looking forward to reading more of your thoughts and observations on the matter.
(Regarding Dr. Vega’s comments, it’s hard to see how you might oppose Israel benefitting on occasion. That country is surrounded by neighbors that are hostile, or at best, ambivalent to it’s very existence. And even under these circumstances it is putting forth an effort to make concessions. Can that much be said about other countries in the region?)
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/may03/middleEast6.asp makes some interesting comparisons of Iraq and post-WWII Germany from the point of view of disengaging the occuping army.
I believe the author would agree the quickest good outcome is made by letting the country run itself and make decisions for itself.
The question may be can Bush put up with a country somewhere between Jordan and Iraq in more ways than one. At this point I think he has no choice. Whatever develops he will have to tolerate it as it is his orphan child.
On this specific stage of the process… maybe the best is a new election. It seemed like the last election day was a good tonic for the country.
Let all the politicians loose their jobs and we start with whoever they elect this time. … I remember voting that way in CowTown USofA so why not in the Big Bagdaddy too?!!
Power to the People! :-)
Whoops… should have been
“somewhere between Jordan and Iran”
… I bet it will be a lot closer to Iran for a while…
First of all, yes, the average Iraqi is busy with” when the power’s coming back on or if the water will run tonight”, but believe me when I say, there are a lot of simple average people were really waiting what will happen and how it’ll end up with the constitution…They are aware of how important is that… Concerning the two Sunni members of the constitutional panel…. I don’t want by any chance to defend anyone…Most of the groups you mentioned did many mistakes and performed illegal acts, or even crimes. Well, they are not a trustworthy; it’s just hard to trust anybody these days. Nevertheless… May I add something to your theories. What about suspicious groups that are trying to provoke sectarian disturbance in the country in a very nasty dirty plan to drag Iraq to a civil war…May also accuse the radical extremists Sunnis (Al-Qaeda) or ex-baathis who don’t want the Sunnis to participate in this political operation, otherwise everything will went ok and Iraq may settle down, and there are a lot of people who don’t want that to happen…it’ll be such a catastrophe for them. Let me be more precise about who are those people (call me moron or paranoid) consider most of the neighborhood countries Iran, Syria, Saudi, even (Jordan so far it’s good to their economy! generally) and could be even the US, it’s a good idea of transferring the counterterrorism war to Iraq so that the bombs will be in Baghdad instead of Washington… Iraq is a very good place to hunt all the extremists…Iraq (with it’s open borders) now is the shorter way for the terrorists to the heaven by killing US soldiers and then have diner with the prophet as they’ve been taught (it’s an over all education)…no harm if the victims are Shiites for the Wahabbis that also will send them directly to heaven…
“My point is that the talking is the point, not necessarily the constitution. That a political process even exists is a bit of a wonder, and it should be seen as welcome and good news. ….. The actual form of those solutions is less important than the fact a mechanism to find them is in place” I agree with you, believe me many Iraqis never dream to have such an opportunity… especially during the ex-regime. .
I do think that the Americans are already very involved here since a long time, or may be at least since the 80’s.
” They need new leaders, frankly, who are not exiles but people who stayed in Iraq during the Saddam regime” You must be kidding! Still didn’t understand Saddam’s policy? Don’t you!!! Leaders stayed in Iraq during Saddam’s time, then may be we should meet them on our next life, or can you tell where we can find their remnants if it weren’t melted in acid!!! But still the Iraqis need new honest patriot leaders, from where can get them, don’t know!
” And they need a mechanism to come to terms with the Ba’ath Party and the bloody fingerprints it has left on Iraqi society’s throat.” I could agree with you.
Dr. de la Vega,
Did you know that during the last years before the war (the 90’s), Saddam started a big significant Religious Islamic Campaign (Al-Hamle Al-Imaniyah), so that a lot of Iraqi women forced in an indirect way (now they are using direct one) to wear the veil! He did start that… Probably Johnnie Walker whiskey was to Saddam and his followers, because also since that period it was not allowed to drink Alcohol, but the people was drinking it secretly as they hated Saddam secretly; it was just a daily two faces life for a lot of Iraqis in many aspects.
http://blearysmack.sitesled.com/