Thomas McCann argues that, “whether the Iraqis choose to ratify their Constitution or not, the experience of their referendum will be a monumental success in the gestation of the Iraqi democracy.” He goes on to make the more forceful claim that a defeat could prove even more useful: “No lesson could be more powerful than the voice of the people saying ‘No’ to governmental leaders and seeing what happens when they do. For this would demonstrate the real authority and freedom that self-rule brings.”
He’s right—though I will say that given the Bush Administration’s inability to frame a just and, in my mind, necessary war in a way that it maintains public support the closer it comes to achieving its strategic aims, it’s doubtful any explanation(s) the Bushies would give for a setback in the Iraqi political process would mollify the US press or most Americans.
Which is why I’m hoping he’s wrong and we get a “yes” vote. Because let’s face it: the real potentiality for failure comes from the US side of things (the Iraq side seems to be getting stronger and stronger, though you’d have to go out of your way to find that out)—where an adversarial press and a Democratic party hungry for power will use any perceived setback to bludgeon the Administration into making dangerous concessions.
And a weakened George Bush, I’m sorry to say, is proving to be a errant George Bush.
The position on the US side isn’t aided by people like O-Dub, who has already denounced the vote a failure. The doughy, ignorant b*stard.
Hmmm.
Frankly I’ve never been able to figure out what the hell Bush thinks he’s doing on the domestic side.
Speaking of an adversarial press, on my internet home page the lead story (from the AP) on the election is: “[Headline:] 3,663 Iraqis Killed in Past 6 Months . . . [Text:] . . .according to an Associated Press count.” Get that? They felt they had to slam the election, but they couldn’t find any actual news to do it, so they researched their own previous posts and framed that as a new negative story.
TW “truth”—‘nuff said.
It doesn’t matter what frame the Administration puts on the war, as the Democratic. latte-lefty media will never tell us what it is in favor of their own revealed truth…
Nowhere in my paper today did the AP stories or the local stories mention, opine, guess, speculate that perhaps, maybe, just maybe, the reason the Sunnis came out to vote is because their rebellion has FAILED, that they’ve lost, might lose, or on their way to losing.
Yes, I suppose if they voted down the Constitution, that too might be a victory for democracy. But quite possibly the last one. Because if the constitution fails, there will be such clamoring for the U.S. to leave that it might well seal the fate of the Iraqi republic.
They vote yes, they get another chance to vote, because they gain more time to build up their forces under our tutelage. To me, that’s the only real choice—and having said that, I do not think that this then invalidates the election—an election in which the choice is clear is no less valid than an election where the choice is muddled.
They have a choice—constitution or descent into chaos. A defeat for the constitution is a defeat for the process, too. So in that sense, I disagree with McCann. No one will spin a defeat of the constitution as a victory for democracy, nor should they.
Well, if they WOULD, we wouldn’t have a problem then, would we?
I suppose not.
We know how a “no” vote would be portrayed—not as (for instance) “The Iraqi people were unhappy with aricles 23 and 24, and wanted technical changes to article 26”—which might be the actual reasons the constitution was voted down, but instead we’d get the 72-point BUSH LOSES! INSURGENCY WINS! IT’S TET, BABY, WE CAN SMELL IT! headlines in the media, which would then likely take the form of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Such is the sophistication and nuance of our loyal (ahem) opposition that they are only capable of painting a picture with a firehose, and of speaking through a 150db megaphone.
“Nuanced defeat” is therefore not an option; they are not capable of understanding or admitting such a thing; so we must hope for unalloyed victory always.
Head over to Oliver’s blog, where JadeGold is on about how a constitution won’t completely snuff out the insurgency, and so is a failure.
The irony being, that he’s pinning that on conservatives, who’ve told him all along that the political solution would defeat the insurgency.
Evidently, we forgot to say “magically” and “instantly.”
Heh.
Whiskey Rebellion, anyone? Shays’ Rebellion anyone? War Between the Fargin’ States, anyone?
THE CONSTITUTION IS A FAILURE!
Jeff: Your blog still rocks, hope you don’t mind me slinking back :^)
Colossus: Shays’ Rebellion occurred in the mid-1780s. At that time the “Constitution” was the Articles of Confederation. As a result of the rebellion, the Founders threw out the Articles and started over with the Constitution we have now.
The Articles of Confederation actually *were* a failure, and Shays’ Rebellion actually did help everyone see that.
Mind you, the fact that Shays wasn’t trying to impose a Puritan dictatorship a la Cromwell helps to explain why his rebellion achieved its aims and why the Ba’athists and Islamists, who are far worse than Cromwell ever was, haven’t achieved theirs.
Turing: “surface”. Go beneath…
My bad; Shays Rebellion was 1786, he was pardoned in 1787, same year Constitution was adopted, but wasn’t ratified until 1788.
http://www.shaysnet.com/dshays.html
BECAUSE OF THE DEBTORS!