Lump on a Blog sees important differences between the Afghan and Iraq constitutions:
The role of Islam is also a source of contention, which I address here. Many point out the Afghan constitution and the greater role allowed Islam in that country as proof we pessimists are over-reacting—but the comparison itself is flawed.
The people of Afghanistan were empowered by a strong American response that enjoyed international and—more importantly in my mind—U.S. domestic support. While the battle for Iraq was a decisive victory for the United States, our initial reaction to the killing of international contractors in Fallujah—their charred and beaten corpses hung from bridges—was to pull back. Many saw this as a sign of weakness, including the terrorists. The subsequent battle in Najaf did not help ameliorate this image, and the fact Muqtada al-Sadr is still breathing sends the wrong message to those complicit in the deaths of American military personnel.
Sometime during the Iraqi campaign, the DNC morphed into a public relations firm, churning out free-of-charge first-rate propaganda for the terrorists—and they were joined by most of the international community. It should be clear the perception the Iraqi people share of U.S. strength and resolve is fundamentally different from your average Afghan. Also, I am sure many Iraqis still remember being left in the lurch by the United States shortly after the first Iraq war in the early 1990s.
After Somalia, Osama bin Laden called America a paper-tiger. He believed the U.S. lacked the stomach for a long and protracted war; that we cut and ran after the first signs of casualties. He wanted us in Afghanistan—another graveyard for yet another superpower. He grossly miscalculated.
Iraq is different. Here, there is more truth to the paper-tiger label. Internal bickering, half-measures, spin machines, Crawford “vigilsâ€Â, the seditious tendencies of the left, and just a general exhaustion about the whole damn thing paint a picture that looks nothing like Afghanistan.
Using Afghanistan as a model for Iraq to counter statements of pessimism regarding the role of Islam in the Iraqi constitution is off the mark. An Iraqi theocracy, or pseudo-theocracy, would be a policy failure. Period.
For my part, I’ve been wavering between cautious optimism and outright pessimism—mostly because it is impossible, given our politically-charged, sensationalist media, to get an accurate reading on Iraqi public opinion (though we’re informed of every instance, it seems, of protest—always framed in the most dire terms).
I do take Lump’s points, however; in my post earler today, I noted that the desire to shore up domestic public perception with regards to the war’s successes is driving many of these arbitrary deadlines—and that the need to get the document right is more important than getting it done. But the Administration is in a tough spot here, precisely because (as Lump points out) the various factions in Iraq are politically savvy enough to recognize the weakening of public opinion in the US—and so to recognize that the Bushies are willing to put their weight behind certain concessions and compromises to which they might under more favorable circumstances strenously object.
Meanwhile, Omar at Iraq the Model makes a similar observation with regard to the Sunnis, who are beginning to understand that as a wedge group, they hold considerable political power over the constitution process (and indeed, I’d add, over the entire fate of the process, should they come to believe the US doesn’t have the will to return to the starting gate; unfortunately, the State Department has from the beginning attempted to placate the Sunnis rather than tell them that the train is leaving the station whether they’re on board or not…). Such observations lead him to conclude:
[…] even if the draft gets approved by the National Assembly tonight or tomorrow, we’re still going to face more obstacles with this constitution that focused on unnecessary details; these details were introduced to please politicians and serve partisan ambitions while the interests of the people came only in the 2nd place and believe me, till this moment no one can know for sure if Iraqis are going to accept or reject the constitution, maybe the Kurdish people are most likely to vote with “yes” but the Shaet and Sunni people’s position is not definite yet and that particularly applies to the Sunni whose current spokesmen do not necessarily represent the mainstream Sunni opinion.
Iraqis as a people are facing a very difficult choice this time; it’s not like the January elections when they had 111 slates from all colors of the political spectrum to choose from but now they’re left to choose between a constitution they don’t agree with all its contents and a possible dangerous political vacuum in case they reject the constitution.
The irony is that much of the tension here is completely illusory and media driven—with the various interests vying to use their positions to frame the subsequent course of public opinion.
From the American perspective, this boils down to the Bush detractors pressuring for withdrawal (which they know won’t happen all at once, but which they are hoping to effect by turning the Administration back into Bush I “realists”), while Administration supporters worry that the President will cave to the overwhelmingly negative media portrayals of the campaign and declare victory prematurely. The various Iraqi players, perhaps sensing this, are using it to bargain for their various positions, it seems to me.
So long as the protests remain political, however—and so long as the Administration can be trusted to adhere to its commitment to see this thing through, there is nothing, I’ll venture, that can undermine the process—even if it means starting from scratch.
****
update: Iraq leaders are now saying they are “hopelessly deadlocked,” according to FOXNews’ John Gibon.
See you at the referendum!
YAHTZEE!!
Lump makes the same error that all anti-war people make, namely that this is a war between the United States and somebody. It is not. This is a war between the citizens of Iraq and their former regime.
The constitution is a codification that the old regime’s ways will never return. Whether contractors’ bodies were hung over a bridge, whether we acted weakly against the terrorists and criminals in Fallujah, or whether Tater Sadr was dealt with harshly enough are all side issues that were settled last November when George Bush was re-elected.
When we leave, the Iraqi people will have to live with their republic. Whether they can keep it is ultimately up to them.
“same error” or same dishonest distortion?
To add a note of gaurded optimism, the Sunni strategy is not as encompassing of all Iraqi Sunnis as one may be led to believe. As Omar also notes-
<objection to the idea of generalizing federalism and there is also the governor of Mosul who seems to be in favor of federalism and in a statement he gave a few days ago he expressed his interest in turning Mosul into a federal state without the need to include other provinces in that state since Mosul alone was one of the four (or was that five?) counties from which modern Iraq was established after the fall of the Ottoman empire.</blockquote>
The Sunnis will have to decide to either cut their losses and form a truly coherent consensus with which to participate in the government, or hedge their bets that a failed constitutional process will benefit them in the long run. The thing they have going for them now is that most Sunni areas have suffered greatly since the war began, because of their strategic importance for the Jihadists, thus the people are ripe for discontent. But this will not last forever, the US military (despite the fact that you have to go online to hear about any of this) is swiftly rebuilding many Sunni areas at a pace that will soon make these places look better than they did under Saddam…
I bet that the Sunni anti-consitutional leaders days are numbered, and they know it.
I screwed up- Omars comment from above should read-
“However, that’s not what all Sunnis think; there are the tribal chiefs of Al-Anbar who announced yesterday that they have no objection to the idea of generalizing federalism and there is also the governor of Mosul who seems to be in favor of federalism and in a statement he gave a few days ago he expressed his interest in turning Mosul into a federal state without the need to include other provinces in that state since Mosul alone was one of the four (or was that five?) counties from which modern Iraq was established after the fall of the Ottoman empire.”
preview is my friend, preview is my friend…
Tman—I’m betting the opposite. They’ll have much more representation in parliament next time around, and the Shiite religious parties will likely be taken down a notch now that civil society is more developed and aware of their intentions.
I agree with Lumpy, but the chances of Iraq looking even remotely like a theocracy are practically zero.
The “Iraqi theocracy” meme seems to be the 2005 edition of the 2004 “elections will never happen” meme advanced by Chomsky and others.
I think I already know what the 2006 memes are going to be: “The troops will never come home” followed closely by “We’re cutting and running” when the troops do come home.
Then for the next 5 years the press will breathlessly report every little snag as evidence the whole mission was a failure, ignoring the free press and democracy and prosperity until suddenly we wake up one day and Iraq has become W Germany.
Hey, it wouldn’t be the first time.
“The troops returning home are worried. ‘We’ve lost the peace,’ men tell you. ‘We can’t make it stick.’ … Friend and foe alike, look you accusingly in the face and tell you how bitterly they are disappointed in you as an American. … Never has American prestige in Europe been lower…. Instead of coming in with a bold plan of relief and reconstruction we came in full of evasions and apologies…. A great many Europeans feel that the cure has been worse than the disease. The taste of victory had gone sour in the mouth of every thoughtful American I met.”
— Life Magazine, January 7, 1946
It’s amazing to me that anyone takes the theocracy meme seriously. Even the Shia clerics don’t want a theocracy; Al-Sistani has been quite insistent on repudiating the idea. In fact, as far I can tell, no one in Iraq is seriously suggesting rule by clerics.
Hardly surprisingly, the leftist trolls are fighting this battle in old posts, so that they can drop their bullshit without a lot of scrutiny.
I suppose it’s a little late for this sentiment, but, y’know, we rammed a democratic constitution down the collective Japanese throat, which has turned out pretty good for everyone. Perhaps instead of letting the Iraqis flounder trying to figure out what a democracy is (something they’ve never experienced), we should have defined it for them, just as we did with Japan.
But, I suppose that would be too IMPERIALIST of us.
mph,
Japan surrendered to us unconditionally. We were the only authority there, so ofcourse we could dictate the form of their government.
I don’t think that could happen in Iraq today. For one thing, Japan had not only lost the war, but had been soundly and completely whipped and suffered far more devastation that we visited upon Iraq.
Besides, despite what the MSM trolls are spewing, I’ll bet the US is doing its utmost to affect the outcome.
The left is full of jakcasses, but here’s why the Constitution may be ratified but still fail in the end:
<a href=”http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/archives/004723.html” target=”_blank”>
<a href=”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/20/AR2005082001317_pf.html” target=”_blank”>
Read the Wa-Po article and realize, the Shia and Kurdish militia’s are taking power into their own hands, acting like gangsters by killing their opponents and greasing every hand they can. It won’t matter if the Constitution is voted by Iraqi’s since the militias will make sure they vote pro-militia (which is pro-Constitution in Kurdistan and Shiastan). And then once we leave, it’s an extermly likely possibility that a 3 part state will arise, the mixed towns like Kirkuk are going to run with blood, and every regional player will rush in to carve out for their interests (Turkey for Kurdistan, Iran vs. Saudi Arabia for Shiastan/Sunnistan).
Now, as BD says, we just might be able to stop the malignancy of militia power-grabbing, if we stay the course and train an Iraqi army that upholds the Consitution, the light infantry of the militias can’t oppose a full army. If we can’t do that, the Constitution is just words, the militias carve up Iraq, and our efforts fail.
It’s amazing that seemingly everyone in the right-side of the blogosphere is so preoccupied with only the Constitution. No one is talking about the dreadful possibility that even if we succed, we still have a loooooooooooooong way to go, and that the democratic process may hurt us in the end. It is exremely important that everyone who is a supporter of the occupation knows exactly what we face and speaks about that plainly and honestly, and being ho-hum about the Constitution while ignoring the realities on the ground just doens’t cut it.
Sorry, here’s the articles:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/20/AR2005082001317_pf.html
http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/archives/004723.html
Fresh Air,
It was difficult to tell from your wording, but if your intent was to label me as anti-war, that would be completely innacurate. I was pro-war from the beginning. I am what you would call a hawk in these matters.
No, I am anti-the-way-this-war-is-being-fought. Read some of my posts at Lump on a Blog. I believe I have been clear in stating my opinions on the war on terror (this is really a clash of civilizations), and the war in Iraq (the two cannot be separated.)
As for X, I don’t distort anything. Soon after my post was written, I came across two stories in Iraq which I posted as major updates that lend support to my position. Namely, the separate Sunni and al-Sadr demonstrations.
I am not a moonie – they are the ones that distort. If it can be claimed I have an agenda, it is this: victory. If there is anything which appears to stand in the way of that victory, I will call it out. I will do so honestly and with facts.
That does not mean that in every case I will be right, but I am pretty sure I am in this particular case.
Frank,
One of the several huge, flashing warning signs contained in that WaPo article is that one of the sources is a member of a “human rights” group; AKA “people in ivory towers who don’t have a clue.”
Yes, there’s some skirmishing going around, and yes, most of it involves Kurd and/or Shiite militias going after Sunni politicians. Mainly because those folks have been itching for payback for decades, and they’re getting tired of waiting.
This desire for revenge (and analysts such as the folks over at strategypage.com have pointed out that the victims have a very good idea of who executed what {or whom}
is exactly why Sunni obstructionism is literally self-destructive.
My prediction: sooner or later nature will take it’s course when the Kurds and Shiites take revenge on the Sunnis who tortured and oppressed them for so long
Blood will flow. Count on it. The only question is: how much?
And no, this doesn’t mean that all the Sunnis in Iraq deserve this. They don’t, any more than the people of Berlin deserved what happened to them in April and May of 1945.
But when you recall what the Germans did to the Russians when they had the chance, you can understand why what happened, did happen.
… As for what Lumpy opines, let me remind folks that it took even the definably brilliant men who lead America into independance many years, and two tries to develop an effective constitution.
I shall relay two very important piece of wisdom:
One comes from Winston Churchill: “Trees do not grow up into the sky.” That is, things to not infinitely occur without end. In this context, Sunni leaders will get tired of being poor, shot-at, and car-bombed, and begin to work with the central government.
The other comes from author Jerry Pournelle: “The main thing, the important thing is not to lose your head.” That is, do not let the day-to-day variations, frustrations, and occasional setbacks blind you to the main objective. We -all of us- are now experiencing the fog of war in real time.
Annoying, isn’t it?
Casey,
I doubt that this is just only getting payback (and to tell you the truth, I’m not shedding a tear when some of those Baathist Sunnis get capped), this sounds like the militias are consolidating their power by force. And I don’t need a human rights group to tell which way the wind was blowing. From what I can tell, Steve Vincent’s murder and the attempted murder of his interpreter is linked to the rise of the militias as the governing forces in many areas like Basra.
The Wa-Po quotes:
The govenor of Basra, not some limp-wristed human rights group, is stating direclty that most of the police are loyal to the party/militia and not the state. And, not just Sunnis are getting killed, Shias too, their own people, are getting killed. This puts a damper on the whole idea of establishing a liberal democratic Iraq since who wants to vote for someone other than the status quo or just even speak out against it if it means a bullet in your head. This is very, very bad news, for that asks if the Iraqi army is chock full of militia operatives and can they fight against their own countrymen if a civil war breaks out.
I’m not trying to do the whole bullshit, leftist dance of, “Bush Lied! People Died! Out of Iraq NOW!” I have always supported the war and still support the occupation. I’m just addressing how seemingly everyone is focusing on the Constitution, when it’s the guns of the militias that could turn over everything that we’ve accomplished and worked for.
Furthermore, let’s hope to the Almighty that the blood doesn’t flow! That means a full, blownout civil war, where everyone settles the scores and mixed ethnic towns (Baghdad, Kirkuk, Mosul, etc) are turned into the slaughterhouses of ethnic cleansing, which then will definitly involve Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia trying to “stabilize” the situation through their militaries.
The Sunni leadership is a bunch of preening cocks who don’t realize their power is gone, but this consolidation of the Shia and Kurdish power makes me sick that our “allies” are becoming as gangsterish as the Baathists were and could lead the country to destroy itself through their politcal greed.
Also, if you don’t mind posting them, I would like to see those Strategypage.com articles.
The scandal overlooked by all from this OIF and Bush supporter is that our OWN ambassador and Administration pushed hard FOR acceptance of the specific conditions for an Islamic theocracy in order to “get a deal” rather than pushing in the opposite direction to be a force (with Allawi and the Kurds) for less possibilities for future power of the clerics, or at a minimum staying neutral in that area. We pushed so hard that even Islamic Kurds and other significant sectors in the negotiations were crying foul to our own media about our arm twisting. I served in Baghdad myself as a Chaplain in support of our overall aims there in a battalion where several died, but because of this shameful (yet ignored) behavior on our part and the substance of the draft which conservatives knee-jerk defend due to habitual intellectual battles with inane liberals, I continue to pray for the dissolution of this constitutional draft no matter the short term consequences to mitigate what in the long run would prove disastrous in the war against terror… Andy McCarthy (NR Online contributer) is one of the few who have shared and expressed these sentiments, primarily on pure national security concerns rather than the intrinsic “moral truth high ground” concerns of pushing for and supporting an Islamic theocracy which, if there is a non-Islamic God, we as individuals should be concerned about before pushing hard for short term real-politik pragmatism.
If the Democrats capture either the House (probably unlikely) or Senate (probably very unlikely), then all bets are off.
The pressure on the party by the left elements to cut off funding for the operations will be enormous.
Enormous.
SMG
CH Prost: I repeat, “Trees do not grow up into the sky.” Things won’t continue to go wrong, and the doomsayers will become bemused.
I think (as I said above) that most of the Sunnis will decide to deal with the new government, instead of ignoring it, and they’ll start opposing the terrorist/Baathist diehards out there.
The problem here is that all of America now has the wonderful opportunity to enjoy the “fog of war” in real time. Stuff is going to go wrong, people will make bad choices, and the world will still be going to Hell in a handbasket, something which has been occuring ever since the human race started publishing newsletters a few centuries ago. {wry grin}
Frank, I’m replying via email, but just in case someone else is curious:
Frank sez: “Also, if you don’t mind posting them, I would like to see those Strategypage.com articles.”
The posts are (to a degree) all over the place on that site. The best place to start would be (starting at the main page) clicking on: Wars/Iraq (under The Middle East), and perusing that list.
After that, go through (again, from the main page) HTMW -How To Make War-, Wars (current), and On Point (commentary).
I’ve found http://www.strategypage.com an invaluable resource over the years, and they’ve been pretty much matter-of-fact about what’s been happening over there, especially regarding factors such as tribal allegiance, and just how much the culture of corruption may wreck all of our hard work over there.
Definitely recommended.