As the Iraqi Constitutional Committee prepares to submit a draft which will surely be rejected in a referendum because Sunni voters have a majority in sufficient provinces, and as Bush ratchets up his rhetoric about sacrifice, I’m prepared to give John Howard the benefit of the doubt and assume that these remarks are just propaganda rather than his considered opinion:
Prime Minister John Howard has defended Iraq’s delay in preparing its constitution as the process is delayed yet again.
“It took more than a decade for Australia to write its constitution,” he said at the annual State Conference of the SA Liberal Party yesterday.” It took a revolution for the US to write her constitution and it took hundreds of years for the British to form their unique constitutional system.
“Yet the rest of the world has got the nerve to sneer at Iraq,” Mr Howard said.
Howard must realise that Iraq hasn’t got ten years, and that any differences that existed over trade policy and federalism in 1890s Australia pale into insignificance when compared with the divisions and violence that rack Iraq.
Immanuel Wallerstein is quite right to argue that the US has lost the Iraq War, as I’ve previously noted. It’s clear that at most five Iraqi battalions are capable of operating without massive US support, and it’s also clear that a defacto Shi’ite theocracy backed by Iran is in the making in the South. The US military has warned that failing to negotiate in good faith with the Sunni minority will destroy the constitutional process, and lead to an even stronger insurgency. And 33 times the number of American troops have died in Iraq since the moment that Bush proclaimed the mission accomplished.
Howard and Bush have no choice other than to maintain their rhetoric – increasingly disconnected from reality as it is. However, Howard’s slip in an interview on Lateline last week probably reveals what he really hopes:
It would be good if we could be out tomorrow, it would be good if it all disappeared next week.
He may have noticed that the usual cheer squad for the Iraq “mission” have been rather subdued of late. Even good news blogger Arthur Chrenkoff. Only 6 of the 18 posts on the front page of Good News central are actually news from Iraq (though I’m unsure how to categorise this post). Most of Chrenkoff’s latest work is just the usual RWDB stuff (men more intelligent than women, Europe bad, Canada bad, Lefties hypocritical, etc).
One could conclude that the homeland allies of the Coalition of the Willing are cutting and running, even as some of their political leaders would like to, or are preparing to.
No doubt right-wingers will find some other noble cause, while the future of Iraq itself looks increasingly bleak, to say the least.
Elsewhere: More at Andrew Bartlett’s place.
Iraq – Breaking Down or Breaking Up?
Maybe accepting it is not tenable to try to hold Iraq together is the best chance to avoid civil war, ensure the Kurds have the independence they deserve, and generate a viable exit strategy from the mess that the USA and Australian governments are n…
It’s always hard to know how much weight to put on different peoples’ analyses, but that is becoming less of a problem with Iraq, as more and more people across the specturm are concurring on how bleak the prospects are of getting a Constitution that will enjoy the level of legitimacy that is needed to give any hope for stability in the medium term.
The real dilemma is what to do about it. Claiming vindication at how irresponsible and stupid Bush, Blair and Howard have been doesn’t help decide where to go from here.
I am wondering more and more whether it might be best to accept that forcing Kurds, Sunni and Shi’ite into a three-way shotgun wedding that none of them really want is unlikely to work. Perhaps it is time to let Iraq break up – for starters it would give the Kurds the independence they so clearly want (and deserve). (Determining control of Kirkuk would be messy, but it already is).
This would probably make it even more certain that there would be some parts of the former Iraq that would develop as a pro-Iran theocratic state, which is not ideal, but it would be a smaller entity and would just more openly reflect what is basically there below the surface anyway.
I saw an interesting piece in the Jerusalem Post about this issue – http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1124677190958 – (sorry about the messy URL, I don’t know how to put links more nicely within a comment)
It started by saying:
“Despite all the recent frantic attempts at constitution-making, Iraq is not a state anymore. It is difficult for the US government, as well as for the international community, to realize this, but the earlier it sinks in the better the chances for a realistic approach which could give the people in Iraq a chance for a more peaceful future.”
It goes on to make some comparisons with the break up of the old Yugoslavia.
I can certainly see some problems with going down this path, but given that every path is looking ugly, it may have a lot going for it as the ‘least worst’ option.
I remember discussions about that option at Troppo Andrew. The Turks are unlikely to accept an indepedendent Kurdish state on their border for a start unless they shifted significantly in the past couple of years.
And there are messier questions. Like, do you relocate people (i.e. move all the Shia out of Kurdistan to a Shia republic?) etc. etc. You will still have to ensure protection for minorities (Turkmen, Assyrians etc + whatever minorties you created in a three way split). And never mind Kirkuk: there are large oil fields in the south which would be contentious and whoever gets piggy in the middle ain’t going to be happy either way.
Hmm, 44 to win. I think the Poms have won the series anyway so I don’t know why I am still watching.
On the original post. I personally thought it was outrageous to expect Iraqis to come up with a constitution in such a short space of time (I think even the South Africans took two years). But as you say, Mark, the Iraqis just don’t have the luxury of time. I notice the phrase ‘civil war’ is also being bandied about in papers like The Australian of late as well.
On the other hand, it was the likes of Sistani et al who forced the U.S. to agree to elections as “early” as they were held…
Frigging mess.
34 to win this match.
The problem with that “solution” is as saint states it, Andrew. There are significant minorities in almost every province and Sunnis may be a minority in Baghdad. Inevitably, a 3 way split involves ethnic cleansing. And the Sunnis are hardly going to lay down and accept a state without oil.
I suspect there is absolutely no solution in the foreseeable future, which is the true tragedy.
No solution except for the coalition of the increasingly unwilling to get out and leave it to the Iraqis and Iran to sort out. Whether they split Iraq into 3, whatever bloodshed comes, is is irrelevant as we and the UK/US no longer have a useful role to play. Our influence now is practically zero.
What’s so ironical is that in Gulf War 2, Iran won in a landslide, without (almost) having to lift a finger—Uncle Sam’s biggest effort ever to kick goals for the Shia ‘enemy’ at every roll of the dice.
Problem is, mad dog Cheney thinks he can reverse all that with nukes.
Well, I read IW’s article (his assumptions are breathtaking),and read Hitchens (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/995phqjw.asp?pg=1). Hitchens wins.
MarkL
Canberra
Any ideas of your own MarkL in response to what has been posted, or something original?
P.Kemp
Saigon 1975.
I fail to see how the complex situation that is Iraq can be deemed as ‘lost’ as determined by ‘public opinion’. Despite the forecasts of the experts democracy has been brought to Iraq in the form of a parliament and a referendum is to be held in October of a draft constitution. Let not the pundits prematurely call the referendum as lost and deny the political process its role.
This Cindy Sheehan stakeout is just a tacky sideshow not a compelling political argument.
The compelling political argument Rog is that the US military has lost. In terms of American public opinion, they agree. Cindy Sheehan is but one manifestation of that, which resonates.
Ask yourself how ‘democracy has been brought to Iraq’ when all you can do is say is ‘a parliament’ exists and there’s always light at the end of that referendum tunnel. Got that ring of deja vu confidence about it, hasn’t it?
Nobody is denying a political process, (or the right to it) is taking place, simply that our input into it cannot influence that process. And a large chunk of Iraq will eventually be a Shia theocracy in the Iranian orbit.
Their ‘democracy’, not ours, or do you propose we try and stop that all happening with the Cheney option?
Saint, enjoy the cricket for the sport it is.
I admit I enjoy watching the Aussies lose because it is good for cricket.
It appears no-one ever read anything that TE Lawrence and Winston did in the 1920′s. A pity since they created Iraq.
Hitchens is another of the Iraq war apologists who knw more than the 9/11 commission and who cannot answer why Hussein was top of the heap to get rid of.
He obviously has no knowledge of the Iraqi defence capability prior to the invasion.
nothing about its planes being the slowest and some of the oldest around, nothing about the tanks being the oldest and nor being able to service some of them, nothing about Iraq having no capable generals and the army behaving badly in battle and lastly he hasn’t read the final report of Blix otherwise he might have known the best missiles that Iraq had fell out of the shy halfway to Israel.
If things are so good in Iraq then why was Wolfie punted to the world bank he has NO experience, background or qualifications.
Those uneducated mad mullahs from Iran have done over the ivy leagues neo-cons something fierce.
To put up a compelling argument that the US military has lost you must first list its stated objectives and then compare those objectives with the actual results.
I think you will find that one objective was to allow a political process to evolve in Iraq. That political process is not confined to Iraq, so it would seem
If PM Howard knew it took decades to write constitutions why did he agree with Bush and Blair to only give the Iraqis 6 months to write one?
‘Peter Kemp’ certainly has provided a ‘compelling argument’.
I am utterly ‘convinced’.
”I think you will find that one objective was to allow a political process to evolve”
What utter BS. It was only Sistani who forced Bremer to go for elections after Bremer spent all that time trying to convince everybody that all was required was the puppet Alawi government. You call puppetry a political process? Elections were either not possible or practicable, remember?
Fuck, talk about revisionism, you sound remarkably like a lying neo-con, don’t you Rog?
“LET ME BEGIN WITH A simple sentence that, even as I write it, appears less than Swiftian in the modesty of its proposal: human poo is far better than elephant poo. Here are the peanuts. Soon we will have gado gado.”
Well called, Anthony. Actually, I thought Hitchens’ first paragraph was spectacularly concise. You only had to read that to know precisely which tired argument he was going to belabour for the rest of his apologia.
I am the little baba or perhaps the retired baba.
I agree with Mr paxton and somewhat with Mr kemp, (without the bad language).
Right on Fyodor, and that almost hysterical historical verbiage…?
Is Fyodor creating a furore?
On the shorter apocalypse Homercles.
Is that where there is only two riders?
It’s where they take a cab, Homer.
I’ll say one thing for the Iraqi constitution writers – they could teach Howard a thing or two about writing a preamble:
What does a lying neocon look like Peter Kemp?
No preambular mention of donkeys?
Values problem right there.
Forget the donkeys, what about “Girt by sand”?
More on the Iranian takeover of Iraq at the NY Review of Books.
Can I be the first to say they are between Iraq and a hard place!
No.
I didn’t walk I ran
Forget the sandy puns, how about:
‘Our land is Kurd by Shia’
Yeah, we know, Homerkles: you ran, you ran so far away. You just ran, you ran all night and day. You couldnÄôt get away.
Keep running.
I will have to mullah over that Fyodor.
If you do not watch I will send a 1000 kurdishes on you.
That will cook your turkey.
Strangely enough, I find myself acknowledging a good deal of sense in Andrew Bartlett’s comments. Most particularly his sentiment that the Kurdish people of Iraq desire – and deserve – a high degree of autonomy, if not full independence.
However, I can’t say that I agree with all of his thesis. As I see it, all significant Kurdish and Shi’ite parties are still committed to a federal Iraq and their appointed negotiators have reached agreement on this point.
What I find strangest of all is Mark’s statement – asserted as if it were self-evidently true – that the constitution “will surely be rejected in a referendum because Sunni voters have a majority in sufficient provinces”. It is by no means certain that Sunni Arabs will vote against the constitution in sufficient numbers to achieve a two thirds majority against in three provinces.
Many ordinary Sunni Arabs would be heartily sick of the insurgency and, now that they will be “allowed” to vote, may very well accept the constitution provided that secret balloting is enforced. At this stage, I would not automatically doubt statements by a number of prominent Kurdish and Shi’ite leaders that the rag tag collection of ex-Baathists who were appointed to the negotiating committee as a stop-gap really do speak for their supposed constituency.
There is no doubt that many Sunni Arabs will be roused to vote against the constitution. Equally, passing the constitution over the top of their objections is likely to breathe new life into the insurgency – for a while, at least.
But as for being “surely .. rejected in a referendum because Sunni voters have a majority in sufficient provinces” – case not proven, Mark. $50 says you are wrong – e-mail me if you want to take it up. Ony Mark, though, please – I could easily be wrong and I’m not that friggin’ rich! We’ll know shortly after October 15.
TFK, generally I don’t bet on election results! But I’m prepared to stand by the prediction.
TKF: ”Many ordinary Sunni Arabs would be heartily sick of the insurgency and, now that they will be “allowed” to vote, may very well accept the constitution”
I’d strongly suggest that as the insurgency is primarily Sunni based, flowing from the Baathist loss of all privileges post Saddam, it could not be where it is or possibly continue without substantial ordinary Sunni support.
They need a political solution similiar to the Kurds but by default, dealt themselves out of the game in the last election, notwithstanding the appointed representatives etc. now.
In Northern Ireland terms, the political wing and the military wing of the IRA have not got their act together, and the loose cannon of Sunni Al Zakawi outsiders, muddies the waters again.
Pity about the bet restriction though.
Yes, Peter, but they’re not going to go for a federalist solution because the Sunni majority areas have no oil – except for the bits that are disputed between Sunnis and Kurds.
Exactly, federalism leaves them with a shell, so their interests are for a unitary state with, dare I say it, power and influence like the National party of Australia!
(Sadr is Barnaby on the Shia coalition side?)
Not participating at the election in my opinion was a major Sunni blunder, and the longer the insurrection goes on, the more the bridges are burnt, and the bigger the mess becomes. I think it has gone past the point of no return, and the proof of this is the stranglehold the Kurds and Southern Shia’s have at the provincial level which I can’t see being reversed. De-facto federalism now is my description, leading to a breakup of Iraq, with Sunnis as the all time violent losers.
Yes MarkL, Hitchens nails it alright, but I’m afraid it’s all a wee bit too nuanced for most tastes around here.
I think what I’m saying is that it’s too late for the Sunnis to do much at all except be isolated in a de-facto federal state or be an indigestible violent lump in the body politic of a nominal unitary state.
The tragedy is it didn’t have to be this way.
If Hitchens is nuanced, observa, I’m the Queen of Sheba. Whether in his left wing or right wing incarnations, one thing he never did was nuance.