I realize that democracy may not be necessay to achieve the minimal set of goals for the US in Iraq, but I'm not sure we're making out job any easier by not even pretending to be democratic:
The head of the committee drafting Iraq's constitution said Tuesday that three days are not enough to win over the Sunni Arabs, and the document they rejected may ultimately have to be approved by parliament as is and submitted to the people in a referendum.cite
(snip)
The 15 Sunni members of the drafting committee issued a statement saying they had rejected the proposal because the government and the committee did not abide by an agreement for consensus. They said agreement on the document was still far off.
See, if we still want to attempt an actual democracy in Iraq, you can't piss off the Sunnis (who are already the main force behind the insurgency). This will just drive the moderate Sunnis to take up arms and redouble the fighting, this time pointing more clearly towards civil war. You'll need to force (not just twist their arms) them to accept a Constitution that the Sunnis will accept. The price of this is to annoy further the Shiites and Kurds - which is dangerous, and may backfire into violence (al Sadr is still out there somewhere).
And if we don't really care about democracy, and just want stability, then stop pretending: cut the Kurds lose, give the Shiites some tanks and weapons, and wait for the insurgency to end (lots of dead Sunnis this way, but that's what stability requires).
You can't have both (or, rather, neither): the Shiites aren't going to write, much less accept, the constitution that the Sunnis want. They aren't going to work this out, peacefully, on their own. So, we need to pick one, or the other.
Posted by baltar at August 23, 2005 10:51 AM | TrackBack | Posted to International AffairsDid you mean to write this "lots of dead Sunnis this way, but that's what stability requires"?
Posted by: Armand at August 23, 2005 12:19 PM | PERMALINKYes, but only in the sense that if we change our focus away from democracy (something I think will be harder and harder to achieve) and more towards a stable state (one that isn't a failed state and doesn't have active al Qaeda camps in it), that will require a Shiite government, which will likely mean lots of dead Sunnis (both from insurgent Sunni's fighting the "legitimate" Shiite government, and from collateral damage to civilians, 'cause most of the fighting will happen in Sunni areas).
I'm not in favor of it, I just don't see any way to avoid it.
Posted by: baltar at August 23, 2005 12:26 PM | PERMALINKMy other thought on this is that the more federal the system is, the less stability we are likely to see - power grabs by the Kurds, both inside and outside of Iraq; greater alienation among the Sunnis; an emboldened, Iran-friendly sort-of-state in the South where they'll institute all kinds of nastiness, turn up the attacks on the Sunnis ... and let's not forget that state will be on the border or the Saudis and the Kuwaitis ...
I don't see stability - I see civil war whether we stay or not. So let President Bush announce a big withdrawal (several tens of thousands out, timed conveniently prior the '06 mid-term election) and let it descend into the melee it'll become in a situation where fewer Americans are at risk. Bush has already seen to it that this is going to be a failure. Keeping troops there indefinitely just puts them at high risk for a payoff that's more about timing than changing the nature of the outcome.
Posted by: Armand at August 23, 2005 12:34 PM | PERMALINKI'm not sure your wrong, but isn't "civil war" = "failure"? I mean, if we pull out completely, won't a failed state result, destabilizing Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, plus the added extra bonus of active terrorist camps?
I guess I'm coming around to a somewhat cold-hearted position that giving the Shiites a whole mess of guns and letting them run the place would be bad, but not the worst-case scenario.
Posted by: baltar at August 23, 2005 12:43 PM | PERMALINKI guess more and more I'm wondering if instability in Iraq is a bad thing - or at least all kinds of instability there. Some might be preferable to what we'd get if we simply try to prop up a SCIRI run government.
Posted by: Armand at August 23, 2005 12:50 PM | PERMALINKI guess that the $64,000 question: which is worse, a Shiite-led, SCIRI-managed Iraq, or one where there is a weak central government, a quasi-free Kurdistan, and rampant civil war. I just don't know enough to make that decision.
Is there a third option?
Posted by: baltar at August 23, 2005 01:06 PM | PERMALINKSure, a "SCIRI-managed" Iraq with a prolonged civil war/insurgency, and all kinds of no-goodness up in the Kurdish areas that SCIRI doesn't have any hope of controling. That strikes me as the most likely result of Team Bush's ineptitude at this point.
But as to whether things are better in an Iraq that has some sembleance of a government or better where it's clear that things are anarchic ... well, I don't think any of these options are winners.
Posted by: Armand at August 23, 2005 01:23 PM | PERMALINK