Posted on 10/05/2005 8:51:58 PM PDT by jmc1969
IRAQ STANDS less than 10 days away from a momentous vote on a new constitution, the first of a series of events that in the next several months will make or break the U.S.-backed attempt to unite the country under a new political system.
Yet serious discussion of the Iraqi political process in Washington seems to have faded to a whisper. President Bush answered only one question about Iraq during a 55-minute news conference Tuesday; in doing so, he again wrongly described the principal U.S. challenges as defeating Islamic terrorists and training Iraqi forces.
There are many flaws in the proposed constitution, but the most serious is its facilitation of a de facto partition of Iraq into several mini-states. Kurds plan to preserve their existing statelet in northern Iraq and add to it the ethnically mixed city of Kirkuk. Shiite leaders have meanwhile announced plans for a nine-province "region" in southern Iraq that, with its own constitution, courts and security forces -- and control of some of the world's largest oil fields -- would very likely become an Islamic republic closely linked to Iran.
He and other senior officials seemingly can't permit themselves to publicly acknowledge the obvious: that if there is no political accord in the coming weeks, the U.S. objective of creating a democratic Iraq, or even of preserving Iraq as a single state, could be lost. Yet Iraq's prospects would be better if its leaders heard the American president clearly describe the likely consequences of their current strategies. Iraq is risking a civil war, and Americans are not likely to support the further sacrifice of lives in defense of a Shiite Islamic republic, or a rump state of Kurdistan.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Well this may be good news.
The Washington Compost rarely gets things right.
It must mean things are improving.
Why the barf alert? The article is correct - Without establishing a democracy (one of the many reasons we're there), the Iraq War will be a failure.
Don't shoot the messenger. Establishing a democracy in Iraq is #1 goal right now, at least according to everything Bush has said the past few years.
Iraq was destined to fail from the start and I mean the fact that it was drawn together with three very different groups under one state. Very much like the old Yugoslavia that Tito kept under wraps until Communism fell in the early 90's.
Cobble a state together through force or allow a civil war to break out amoungst the various factions.
Some choice, huh?
Like James Brown song in Rocky four.........only in America.
And the Z-man and Binny Boy and others continue to quietly observe.
The Constitution does estabilish democracy and it won't turn the South of Iraq into Iran. As much as I don't like some provisions of the Constitution it is nowhere near that bad.
"The Constitution does estabilish democracy and it won't turn the South of Iraq into Iran. As much as I don't like some provisions of the Constitution it is nowhere near that bad."
I agree with you and the point of the article - we must establish a democracy in Iraq.
The Post's either a.) haven't read the proposed Constitution or b.) were too dumb to understand it.
First, it has been realized from the outset that the new Iraq would be a "federal state". Does not the Post have a proper understanding of federalism? (rhetorical question)
Second, the structure for separating into three independent states is the underlying threat to Sunni nationalists. The separation proposition is a back-up and becomes operative if -- and only if -- the various parties don't approve the federal constitution.
Thus, if the Sunnis fail to approve the federal structure, they risk being isolated.
Finally, the Sunnis cannot be "overwhelmed" by the Kurds and Shiites in the Constitutional voting. The Constitution can be defeated by a 2/3 negative vote in any three of the 18 provinces. But the separation provision is designed to encourage the Sunnis to vote for the federal Constitution -- since oil revenue will be shared on a per capita basis (and the Sunni provinces have no oil).
The Post is engaging in either irresponsible naysaying or outright ignorance.
America:
Federal Constitution.
States rights. State Constitutions. Federal body of laws all citizens must comply with. State body of laws all in a given state must obey. Each state has certain rights and ownership, including how land etc., mineral resources etc., are utilized.
States have the right to trade between other states. States may if it's constituency votes accordingly not go along with laws that may be mandetory in a neighboring state. All states must obey the Federal laws as prescribed within the Federal Constitution, where applicable.
Since each state has the right to use it's mineral resources as it wishes within the contriction of Federal laws, the states have a margin of latitude to do what they want with their land. Federal Court System. A Supreme Court. State, county court systems. A State Supreme court. State legislatures and law enforcment. This is short is America. Now what is so wrong with Iraq having similiar seperations of Federal and State powers. Need I say more. Gotta hit the sack. Tis getting late.
Good post, I would rather federalism be a bit weaker then the current Constitution has it, but it can be changed. Have a good evening.
Japan will never work as a democracy. It is a feudal state bounded by culture stuck in the dark ages.
Roger. Good night.
The subtle implication of the article is that the Administration is responsible for the lack of discussion, when in fact it is the MSM that poses the questions. If the MSM doesn't ask questions about Iraq, then there are relatively few answers about Iraq, which the MSM interprets as a lack of discussion...
MSM logic... mind boggling.
Slipping? I dont think so. Just the opposite since the Compost is still stuck on stupid.
In all fairness, this is only true as of today. Yesterday, it would have taken 2/3 of all registered voters, not 2/3 of people casting ballots, for a province to count in the "no" column. I think there's an understanding that, even if the alternatives are worse, the Sunnis are not going to be happy with this Constitution.
Let's face it. Anything that leaves the Sunnis short of "in charge" translates to "not going to be happy with this Constitution".
Someday, some way, hopefully, they'll "get over it"...
This is crap.
Iran and Iraq are rivals for the leadership of
the Shi'ite world, not partners.
It isn't likely to turn into a utopia anytime soon, which is where some have raised the bar to be their minimum requirement. Recall, though, that in many of these people's eyes the U.S. government is the embodiment of evil as well. We're not going to please them, so we'd best please ourselves.
The Iraqis will make or break their own government in whatever form they can work out. That was the deal from day one. We can't force democracy any more than we can force peace; all we can do is to give them the best chance we can, better, I might point out, than any they have ever had before. But no matter how it does turn out rest assured the the Washington Post and the NY Times will be first in line to declare it a loss.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.