Since this has gotten lost in the other threads, and since it's now public news, it deserves its own thread. This is what our president, in his and his administration's bottomless incompetence, hath wrought. Shiites get an Islamic, clerically controlled state for the entire country, as well as a mini-Iran in the South; Kurds get their autonomy and claims to the oil in their region, enraging Sunnis, while also upsetting Turkey; Sunnis are shut out and now have no reason NOT to participate in either a civil war or the insurgency, and also will probably reject the constitution, which will fuel even more enmity with the Shiites and Kurds. And guess what neighboring, anti-American state will have even greater influence there now? IRAN!

Washington Post: Draft constitution would fundamentally change Iraq



[ August 26, 2005, 06:26 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

And there's more, including Stalinistic doubletalk from the US Secretary of State....

WaPo: Iraqis submit charter, but delay vote

Did W mention any of this in his zombified speech out in Utah?

So this is why over 1,800 of our own and countless thousands of Iraqis have died? This war really is a fraud! This is not a democracy. Perhaps GWB should have been reading "Democracy for Dummies" instead of "The History of Salt". (I am not making that last title up...it is what he actually read while on vacation. He must be a thrill a minute during a long plane ride).

What's the big deal? If Iraq screws it up and gets the wrong type of government, we'll just go back in and liberate them again. And we'll keep on liberating them until they get it right.

LXN

[ August 23, 2005, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: Lexington ]

Thank you LXN, we'll be sure to send you the final bill.

Why can't they all just get along?

NY Times: Bush steps in as charter talks reach breaking point (No registration? Go here).

I'll ask again, our soldiers are dying and being maimed for life for THIS MESS?

BTW, since W can get on the phone and chat up Shiite fanatics, why doesn't he just call Iran's Talibanesque president and pressure him to cut it with the nukes? Or get Ahmad Chalabi, who's a Shiite closely linked to Iran, to whip the Shiites into shape? He had Chalabi sitting right behind Mrs. Laura at his State of the Disunion address just a few years ago....

[ August 26, 2005, 06:25 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

More about the "noble" cause:

Guardian: Under US noses, brutal insurgents rule Sunni citadel

Then there's the issue of Moktadr Al-Sadr, who Donald Strangelove Rumsfeld said was one of the most dangerous men in Iraq. Yet he's still walking around fomenting violence, pitting Shiites against each other. He's also an avowed opponent of this constitution that W says is just so hunky dory and \"historic.\"

Guardian: Shia rivals continue violent clashes

Finally, there's the issue of women in the burgeoning Islamic Iraqi state. Safia Souhail, the Iraqi women's activist that W used as a prop (cf. Iranian agent and convicted bank fraudist Ahmad Chalabi) at his February 2005 State of the Union speech is now denouncing the mess he's created.


Reuters: Iraqi secularists denounce \\"Islamicist\\" constitution

This is why many Americans are dispirited and protesting. Not because they "hate" America or want to endanger our troops, but because the administration, after its endless lies, has not only allowed but is aiding the transformation of Iraq into an antechamber of HELL. This outcome was not worth Casey Sheehan's or any other US soldier's lives, and could have been avoided.

Fanthomas, you are creepy and scarey and unpatriotic. Shame upon you for your bligewater that passes for thoughtful political commentary. Shame on you.

And yet you claim you're "no fan" of MiniMatt? You're sounding just like him, except you seem to be less obnoxious.

Truth hurts when you believed the lies.

BT, see my other post --these guys are certifiable MoonBats filled with hate, self-loathing, anti-military, anti-troops and anti-American sentiments. It's a den of darkness.

If you want, you ought to check GayPatriot's website where intelligent discourse is the norm, not the exception like here.

Gaypatriot.org

Joe, you're not retired yet --get back to work. Make these last few weeks your most productive in a lifetime of feeding at the federal trough.

And on topic: guess what, Bush has been successful in his personal lobbying of the Iraqi govt leaders... it looks like the Constitution will be moving toward the Oct vote... I guess the LibLefties here lose another issue to the power of constructive engagement.

Start scrambling around in the dirt and gutter boys, you need another issue quick.

Oh mercy SHE'S back? Ugh!!!

gobar, she never left. All MIB or PF have to do is log off, then log back on using this alternate profile...whichever one of them it is.

My money's on MIB - he hates the Cubs, and MiMatt lists them as his favorite. Subterfuge on the part of MIB, in my opinion.
wink

Shame on YOU! Does reality so disturb you that you can't deal with it like an adult? What is wrong with you? Seriously?

Are people not supposed to mention what is happening if it somehow contradicts the fantasy scenarios being issued out of the White House or people in power? I mean, you do realize you are sounding like someone in Stalin's Russia or Honecker's East Germany, right? Blind worship of the official line is problematic whether it's W or Clinton or any other leader.

And finally, instead of personal insults, why not point out ONE thing in the last few posts that wasn't true? Just one. Instead of mislabeling things "bligewater [sic]"!

Is an oil-rich fanatical Islamic state that is Iran's puppet what you expected for Iraq? Seriously? One that is in perpetual civil war? Have you forgotten that we initially went to war against an Islamic fanatical state in Afghanistan, run by the Taliban, who were sheltering the people behind 9/11, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri? Is asking you or the president this basic question "bligewater [sic]"?

[ August 26, 2005, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Fantomas, I don't have to tell you this (you seem like you can defend yourself) but don't concern yourself with anyone calling you unpatriotic for expressing yourself. THAT'S WHAT AMERICA, THE CONSTITUTION, OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS ARE ALL ABOUT, PEOPLE. Having gotten that off my chest, I must say that I disagree with your characterization of the constitutional process going on in Iraq. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the proposed constitution have to go to the people, the same populace who turned out by the millions to vote for the first time last year, under threats of death, for their ultimate approval (assuming that agreement is reached on the final document?) Aren't these brave people going to have the last say on whether the theocracy you predict will come to pass? From what I've been reading and seeing on international broadcasts (including your links) there seems to be a popular uprising against backpeddling on democratic rights in the new Iraq. Call me naive, but I believe that, given the chance, democracy (even in its infant form in Iraq) will prevail (unless the vote is entirely rigged in favor of the Shia cabal.) Is this something for the U.S. to support? I say yes.
Let's say that the new constitution doesn't pass. That means that the varrying sides (Sunnis(sic?), Kurds and Shiites) will have to start negotiations all over again. Would this be so bad? Sounds pretty democratic to me. Will there be insurgent uprisings by Shiites who want to go back to the old days when they dominated the majority? Probably. Will the Kurds demand autonomy and control over the oil in their region? Yes. Will religious fanatics try to get the upper hand? Most assuredly. But others will voice their opinion too, and that's democracy, and we should be supporting it. I do not mean that we should blindly support the administration in its handling of Iraq. Hell no.
They've told too many lies for me to believe anything they say. But that doesn't change my belief that the Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam, and things will get better. I am not a political pollyanna, just an American who believes in the power of democracy and the vote.
Keep up the lively discussions (but how about toning down the invective directed at each other, huh?) Your deomcratic friend, Mike

The same party that depressed voting in this country is forcing people to "vote" in another.

Neither is good for democracy, and ultimately neither will work IMO.

Judemorrison, this is what I see going on in Iraq.

The Kurds win either way. If Iraq goes federal, they remain autonomous, and Kurdistan will function like a sovereign state with minimal national oversight. They'll also get to hold onto the oil facilities in the north. They have been engaged in military training with the Israelis in order to deal with the Sunnis and Turkey, and have their own armies. If the Sunnis reject federalism in the upcoming vote, the Kurds might push for independence, which would be to their benefit, though it would enrage Sunnis living in the north of Iraq, in cities like Kirkuk, and that could spark a mini-civil war up there. But the Kurds, who dominate numerically, would probably triumph. Mass expulsions of Sunnis and ethnic cleansing aren't inconceivable.

In terms of democracy and voting, the Sunnis have everything to lose now, since they cannot outnumber and outvote the Shiites except in three provinces (the Shiites dominate in NINE), which would shut down the constitutional process, meaning they'd have to start over, but no matter how many times they vote, they still won't be able to assert power democratically over the Shia majority, which means that a Saddam-Baathist style dictatorial state may their only option. In a federal state, what would become the Sunni region has fewer resources than either the Kurdish north or Shiite south, and Zarqawi and his ilk control many Sunni towns like Haditha. As that Guardian report showed, there is no Iraqi army to challenge these fanatics; the US military is doing an excellent job, but we can only do so much. The Sunnis' main hope may be support from Sunnis OUTSIDE Iraq; most Muslims in the Middle East are Sunni, and it seems clear that Syria and probably Jordan are providing support to the Sunnis and the Sunni insurgency. But keep in mind that that insurgent elements probably are not going to support secular civil law, women's rights, gay rights, etc., i.e., some of the tenets of a liberal democratic state. The fanatics helped to keep many Sunnis away from the January polls, and Zarqawi, like bin Laden, supports a Taliban-style government, only it would be Sunni dominated, NOT Shiite.

The Shia hold the cards. They are the numerical majority both in Iraq proper and in the vast southern part of the country, and among them the religiously-inclined appear to have seized political power, so even though there is no constitution in effect, they are already enforcing Sharia law in many parts of the South. It's de facto now rather than de jure, which is what they want to enshrine through the constitution. They also are closely allied to Iran, and the Iranians are already providing logistical support, arms, and so on for the Shiite ruling parties, and strongly support an Islamic state to their east. Under federalism, the religious Shiites would be able to dominate the secularists and set up this state, but what they've been able to do by cutting out the Sunnis is to impose a religious overlay over the WHOLE COUNTRY, so Islamic law would trump all the liberal democratic provisions that exist in other parts of the constitution. When you mention democracy, the fact remains that Iraqis, who still overwhelmingly lack clean water, electricity, jobs, and security, voted for the religious Shiite parties, not Allawi's secular Shiite alliance, because they probably believe that if anyone can improve things once they have the reins of power, it's the clerics, who'll have Allah on their side.

There is also the problem of schisms within the Shiite community. You've got someone like Moktada al-Sadr, who does not want a federal state, but wants Shiites to dominate ALL of Iraq, not just the South. He has militias, arms, and many supporters among the poor. And he's anti-secular. Against him you have this al-Hakim person, who W was lobbying on the phone, who fought for Iran and sees a sovereign Shiite state in the South as a real possibility.

If the Shiites can work things out amongst themselves, their vision of Iraq will come out on top, no matter what the Sunnis want, and this is a recipe for ongoing disaster. Civil war there isn't just a possibility--it'll be an eventuality.

The problem with W & Co. is that they are always focused on POLITICS, not POLICY. So it is more important to W to have seemingly positive appearances (No Child Left Behind, Medicare bill, CAFTA, etc.) no matter what the real policy effects are on people. I hate to say it, but I think the most important thing to him is what will help the GOP in 2006 and 2008, not what'll work best for Iraqis over the long haul. The RNC is supposed to be thinking about these things, but the president governs the ENTIRE COUNTRY. On one level W doesn't have to worry because he isn't facing reelection, but seriously, he doesn't want to be tagged like Clinton in 1994 as a president whose actions decimated his parties electoral chances (even though Clinton won reelection in 1996). Bush's popularity right now is the lowest on record, so he's going to use any outward sign--no matter how problematic it is internally--to proclaim democracy in Iraq, when the fact remains that he did not invade that country to facilitate a federalized, Shiite-dominated Islamic state. Did he?

No. Some of the neonconservatives (Rice, Wolfowitz) sincerely hoped that a secular state would emerge that would be a counterweight to Iran (as Saddam ironically was, which is why Reagan and HW Bush supported him), a non-two faced ally to Israel (unlike Egypt), and a spur to democracy in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and perhaps even Jordan. Some of them sincerely envisioned this, though all historical and scholarly indications pointed to the fact that it wasn't going to happen. (Many of us on this board saw right through it, so I don't see why people at the highest reaches of the government didn't.) Ultimately, a secular, pacified Iraq would be the best thing not only for Iraqis, but for the US. An Iraq harboring fanatical, enraged and disaffected anti-American Sunnis, and closely linked to Iran, which has sponsored terrorism and been an avowed enemy of the US for 25 years, would NOT.

[ August 27, 2005, 07:40 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Fantomas, Thanks for your thoughts and insights. Notwithstanding my earlier statements, I think in my heart I agree with you re: the prospects of a workable federal system, and the liklihood of civil war - bad for the former and great for the latter. While disparate factions were able to reach a compromise during our own constitutional debates in Philadelphia (and minority and majority interests were accomodated via said compromise; the genesis, I guess, for my faith in the process) I fear that the religious elements and historical animosity involved in the Iraqi situation, not to mention the foreign influences involved, will(have) create(d) a disaster. The Iraqi people, who have suffered for so long, deserve so much more than they are going to get.

Edited to note that this post is just another data point, as the topic has already beeen brought up. I'd delete this if I could.

Iraqi activist taken up by Bush recants her views



[ August 28, 2005, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

From Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to Iraq: "Our own constitution, as you know, had to change in order to remain relevant, and this will be the case with Iraq as well," he said. "Constitutions are not just one-time documents. To be relevant they will have to adapt."

Wonder if he'll get a call from Antonin Scalia about that...