I read an interesting AP article which was printed in the SF Chronicle.


Questions for debate:
1. Is it possible that Iraqis will opt to be more like Iran and Saudi Arabia than countries like Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Lebanon and Jordan? If so could this still be considered a "Democracy" with some of the rights questions at stake?

2. Is this the type of government that the Bush administration had in mind when they set out to liberate Iraq? If not, what action do you foresee the US Government taking if any?

3. Would this type of government help or hurt our objectives in the war on terror?

Edited to add: Anything we say is speculation at this point obviously, but the questions for debate are valid because it is a very real possibility we could end up with a non-western anti-us government in Iraq. This debate is not being presented as a certainty or proof of anything.

I think we have to keep in mind that the Iraqi Constitution is only a first draft and is still being worked until it is presented to the Congress and then the people. It is my understanding that word that the constitution was based specically on Islamic Law was met with similar reactions by the Iraqi people as we have met it with. If there is any country that yearns for protecting minority rights...it is Iraq.

However, one must also keep in mind that there are many provisions of the draft that protect many basic freedoms that we share. I mean if the source for legislation is Islamic Law and the other provisions of freedom in the constitution hold up...isnt it still good? I am just playing devil's advocate here...but is the problem Islamic Law? Is it impossible to have both Islamic Law and freedom similar to most democratic nations?

In conclusion...i think its still premature to pass any type of judgment until we see the final draft that will be presented. Then and only then do we have ample information to base our points.

I think the Iraqi's will be happy to operate like Saudi Arabia. To support my claim you must view it through an Iraqi's eyes: decades of oppression, limited woman's rights, etc. To base the Constitution on Islamic doctrine would be more reasonable for the people of Iraq. The Koran provides guidelines for every day life. Hussein ruled his people with unimaginable tyranny. It seems plausible that the people of Iraq will accept a, in their opinion, more tolerable system (consisting of many rules and regulations but more room in which to "wiggle").




Well if the administration will stick by its promise it should do nothing. Upon letting the people of Iraq gain control of the country of Iraq, it became a domestic affair. To impose our will any further upon those people would be in violation of our objective to establish liberty and freedom for them. In fact, for the United States to take any action, other than aid, would be back-tracking, it would be robbing them of their freedom. In short, it does not matter what Bush's administration had in mind.




Only time will tell.

Questions for debate:
1. Is it possible that Iraqis will opt to be more like Iran and Saudi Arabia than countries like Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Lebanon and Jordan? If so could this still be considered a "Democracy" with some of the rights questions at stake?
My guess would be that it'd be more like Iran rather than Saudi Arabia. Iran and Iraq are now both going to be ruled by Shiite Muslim clerics. The leaders of both countries have already met to talk about economic cooperation and are forging a relationship. We weren't going to have Americas version of democracy in Iraq to begin with so, I'd say that we are going to have the Iraqi version of democracy. It's not bad, it just is what it is.

2. Is this the type of government that the Bush administration had in mind when they set out to liberate Iraq? If not, what action do you foresee the US Government taking if any?
I would hope so. If they honestly thought that Iraq's government was going to look like an American democracy, then Bush and Co. are beyond clueless. Anyone that has a remote understanding of Islam and the Middle East knows that Shari`ah (Islamic law) plays a central role in the day to day lives of Muslims and that's how they want it. If we take any action against this form of government, then Lord help us all because we'll be in for a much much longer and bloodier fight.

3. Would this type of government help or hurt our objectives in the war on terror?
It's going to help with the war on terror. Despite what most people think, having a government that is based on Shari`ah is not necessarily going to turn out to be some oppressive, terrorist breeding cesspool. I think ties between Iraq and Iran will go a long way in easing tension between the two countries and help both of them economically. Once the government is set up and on its feet, the US needs to pull out and let it go. If the people really have a voice in Iraq and the US forces pull out of Iraq, I think Osama will have a much harder time recruiting new terrorists.

Iran, and they’re already signing treaties. No system where Religion plays a major role could be considered a “Democracy”. The doctrine where the numerical majority makes the decision, goes out the window because they are told what decision to make from the Pulpit. They are letting someone decide for them.

The Buss administration when into Iraq without anything in mind, other than “Our Plan for Victory and Withdrawal, is to Win”. That’s like saying “My Pension is the Lottery”. And I think if a Theocracy emerges; then “Liberate” is not the word I would use.

Hinder; 9-11 was a Faith Based Initiative.

Our friends at Iraq the Model have updated stating (as i said) that most Iraqis did not approve of some of the provisions:



So most of our concerns will be worked not through violence, not through suicide bombers, but by democracy. I don't think many people on this board give the Iraqi people enough credit. Things are progressing slowly...but progressing nonetheless.

Which is precisely why I have stated throughout that despite all the lack of democratic history in the area, it stands out as the one method through which the various disputes in the area can be resolved peacefully. Do I expect it to be easy, or go smoothly in the beginning? No, not really. But as more and more people grasp democracy as the solution their problems, which I firmly believe it is, it will gain more and more support. As long as it is shepherded through its beginning phases, it almost has to work....it's the nature of how democracy functions. The terrorists understand this quite well...it's why they're fighting so strongly against it. Pity that those of us not directly involved don't grasp it as well.

I don't think this debate has anything to do with the insurgency Hobbes and Leder. The questions specifically ask what if the Iraqis select, through the democratic process, a society which falls more in line with Saudi Arabia and Iran. This doesn't have anything to do with giving them credit for anything. I don't think anyone is questioning the difficult task they face. It is of course a very real possibility that given the freedom to choose they aren't going to choose what the US Government wants or intends.

This article suggests that may be a strong possibility, other sources claim it isn't. That is the debate.

You're missing the point of my answer. I'm saying its irrelevant. If that's what works for them, then its fine. Having a working Democratic government, regardless of its philosophy, should achieve the goal desired....a stable, peaceful government in the area. Name me a warlike Democracy...there aren't any.

I can't wait to see some of the responses to this one.



Well CJ, i clearly never mentioned the insurgency but only commented on how democracy and not violence is taking hold in Iraq. We can always hed over to Good News from Iraq, Part 32 to see the concrete evidence of this taking place. I don't think anyone ever expected them to have the style of democracy shared by Americans. They expected Iraqi democracy. I expect for the process to be slow. But once the people start enjoying their freedoms (however small they are and even if based on Islamic law) they will most definately thirst for more and push the government for further reform if necessary.

As an update to this topic, the Iraqis are pretty close to a final draft of the Constitution that will be put up for adoption in October. The Washington Post has the story. I thought there were a few interesting tidbits here worth discussing further within the scope of this topic.


If this draft stands then I think we have answered question #1 in this debate because Iraq will have much in common with Iran and Saudi Arabia. I'd really be interested to see how people pulling for "Democracy" in Iraq can claim that we have been really successful when the government will be setup without protections in place for women. This setup could, as the article suggests, give individual clerics a lot of power.


Secondly, this federalist system sounds basically like they are already acknowledging these groups can't play together and they are going to be allowed to go their own ways under a common flag.

Again this doesn't sound very much like the "Democracy" that everyone keeps claiming we brought them.

We are three days out (supposedly) from a final draft and I don't think that major revisions should be expected. I'm wondering if this changes anyone's mind on the subject.

This is a tough one. The hard question, as I see it is, what do we really want here?

The Constitution will be going to a general vote of the public I believe (If I am wrong here, please let me know). Assuming this is the case, and assuming the majority of the Iraqi people choose to support this constitution, then didn't we in fact give them a democracy? Or, more to the point, didn't we give them the democratic opportunity to choose what they want?

I would MUCH prefer a more Western system of government for Iraq. But, what I would prefer doesn't matter, what counts is that the Iraqi people get what they want. That they get to choose their own course for the future.

For the record, I am NOT a supporter of President Bush. I respect the office, period. I am NOT trying to give the White House an out here. I just think that if the Iraqi people get to democratically decide how they wish to be governed in the future then we have done out job (at least with this aspect), even if the resulting government is far from the western ideal.

Some might consider it semantics, but I think that a Democracy entails a whole lot more than just allowing people to vote for their leaders. I think there are definitely some basic characteristics that you need to have as guiding principles or Democracy can't really work, elections aside. Among those principles I would consider equality (of genders, races, religion) to be of paramount importance.

The important question that needs to be asked is whether we have made things worse in the region. Is what we have bought worth the cost?

The general response from your question above is: well, it wasn't too long ago that women and African Americans couldn't vote and our country came out ok and Democracy survived. Of course, I don't know how well marching, picketing, protests, and women's rallies would go over in Iraq. I think one of the major ideas Democracies entail is the ability to speak out, whether through protest or by voting and I'm not so sure that idea is in place in Iraq.


Well, I don't really know what Bush and everyone had in mind. I find it hard to believe that they would think America's Democracy could be cloned and implanted in Iraq. Of course they thought we'd be welcomed with open arms so who knows what they were thinking. If the Iraqi people have the ability to speak out against their government without fear of getting killed or dragged off to be tortured then theirs a chance things could get better over time. I think only time, and not some piece of paper, will tell us if this "wave of Democracy spreading through the ME" comes crashing down on us or if we can hang 10 for a totally narley ride. Surfs up!

I am not really trying to get into semantics on this. What I am asking is, what is more "right" for us to do there? Give the people the opportunity to choose how they wish to live, or force them to live they way we would prefer they did?

I would certainly prefer a Western Democracy in Iraq. I think in the end, the people of Iraq would be much better off, and I think it really could lead to other nations in the region seeing a successful Iraq (down the road) and moving towards democracy themselves. But what is really important here is that Iraqi's make the choice for themselves. If they choose a government that is less then a Democracy, well at least they had the freedom to make that choice. If they are forced into a more Western democracy then are they really free?

Seems to be somewhat of a moot question because I don't think there is anything else we can do to "force" anything on anyone at this point. The Iraqis are making a choice and they are choosing fewer rights than they had under Hussein and rejecting a secular government.

However, I think all of this should have been thought through before the invasion started. Clearly it wasn't or if it was then our planners made some ridiculous pie-in-the-sky assumptions and predicitions. In fact, let me dust off this old chestnut from Richard Perle from 9/22/2003:

This all comes back to my third question here: 3. Would this type of government help or hurt our objectives in the war on terror?

You don't even have to argue whether or not Iraq is part of the war on terror, the Bush administration believes that it is and therefore they should be asked some tough questions. How do we benefit in the GWOT from having a loose collection of states which could easily harbor terrorists? How do we benefit from an Islamic government which enacts the provisions of Islamic law and gives individual clerics incredible power? Why exactly are our soldiers dying to install an islamic government which intends to actually rollback rights people had under Hussein?

Everyone that has been talking about Democracy in Iraq both here on and in the blogosphere has been utterly convinced that it would be this great and fine example of Democracy. Now that we are starting to see the reality of what it will be I wonder if those same people are still wearing their rose colored glasses.

Some good information is now coming to light on the text of the Constitution. Juan Cole has an excellent blog entry which includes a link to the actual arabic document as well as translation of some key phrases. I'll let everyone read it for themselves but there are a few worth highlighting here.

Article 2 is very interesting, I've left Juan's notes in there emphasized in bold:


Article 7's translation (partial):


Article 39:


There is also a partial translation over at the NY Times (registration required). This part is interesting:


It seems like this will end up causing trouble. The revenue available to the central government is going to decline over time and from day one certain regions will become a lot more wealthy and powerful than others. Seems like a good way to fracture the country to me.

I'm going to keep looking around for a full english translation.

Never one to revert to hysteria, I present (or rather re-present) an english translation of the draft text.
Partial Text of the Iraqi Constitution
Preamble

This is the very first paragraph.

Moving on










The Iraqis clearly have worked to allay concerns with this document (not that the Washington Post noticed).

The idea that this creates an state anything like Iran or Saudia Arabia (the two very different from each other, by the way) is simply operating on pre-determined fears.

Turnea that link has already been presented above, check my previous post. Also I don't see anyone resorting to hysteria either.


Now it is pretty clear you didn't read my previous post. I'm going to ask you to go read it. For now I think I'll trust Juan Cole's take on the specific language rather than yours or the NY Times since he happens to actually speak the language. That is until I can locate a complete and definitive english version of it. A link to the arabic version is posted on his blog if anyone happens to read arabic.

Furthermore I was highlighting some interesting things as well as some disconcerting things in my previous post.

That's why I said "re"-present. I think your presentation, although it justly lists some areas of concern was unbalanced without the passages that are meant to allay than concern.


I don't see how this proves this I didn't read your post that I read. I think that's rather impossible.

I was responding to the questions for debate with that comment, not necessarily directly rebutting your post.

Perhaps Juan Cole is on to something perhaps not, I would guess that someone at NYT speaks Arabic too.

1. Is it possible that Iraqis will opt to be more like Iran and Saudi Arabia than countries like Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Lebanon and Jordan? If so could this still be considered a "Democracy" with some of the rights questions at stake?

It is likely to be a blending of the two. We would be rash to hope for something as workable as the Turkish model. Turkey is really the only Islamic state with a parliamentary/democratic government.

We have to keep in mind that the Islamic religion equates religion and government. It is impossible to separate church and state for a follower of Allah. That being said, one should not make the mistake of assuming that just because a country has an official religion that it cannot have religious freedom. Great Britain, for example, has a state religion but the Brits are hardly shackled by a theocracy. What appears in the Iraqi Constitution:



leaves it open to interpretation somewhat. Certainly there are rules of Islam that are not universal. This text refers to the "undisputed rules of Islam". My guess (I am hardly an expert on Islam) is that this means that Allah is God and that Mohammed is his prophet. Things of that nature. I believe this passage could certainly be there to placate those with strong Islamic beliefs. However, it does not of itself demand death to Christians, for example, since that believe is hardly universal in Islam.



2. Is this the type of government that the Bush administration had in mind when they set out to liberate Iraq? If not, what action do you foresee the US Government taking if any?

It is pretty clear at this point that not everything has panned out the way Bush et al had planned for. Ideally, I am sure they hoped for a US Lite type government. I think we all knew that such a goal was unrealistic. What was realistic was a more friendly Western style government, along the lines of Turkey or perhaps Egypt. Neither Turkey nor Egypt are ideal Western democracies or even alway friendly towards the US and Europe, but at least they make some attempts at trade and friendly contact and are not quite openly hostile.

3. Would this type of government help or hurt our objectives in the war on terror?

It ultimately depends on who is running it. If those in power have allegiance to terrorists or believe that terrorism can achieve their ends, then it doesn't matter if it's a theocracy, a kingdom or a democracy. We must put our faith in human nature that people will not choose to enslave themselves, either to a religion or to a political party or to an individual.

There are enough positive things in the proposed Constitution to give me hope that the framers have thought through these issues and are planning for peaceful relations with their neighbors and with the US and its Allies. The clause about not imprisoning people over religion or ideas:



gives me great hope that there will be freedom of speech and religion and this is really the basis of all freedoms we have in the United States: the freedom to disagree and to have our opinions heard.

I fail to see how this would be rash at all.

In fact from my reading of the draft Iraqi constitution it will likely be easily the equal of Turkey in terms of democratic principles.

The Iraqi constitution introduced more individual freedoms than the Middle East has ever seen under a basic law.

I don't hang back at all in looking at this document and seeing an impressive, if not absolute, triumph of reason.

The idea that they will be "in between" Saudia Arabia and Iran seems laughable.

They will be on an entirely different level.

The Full Text of the draft is now available by the way.
Text of the Draft Iraqi Constitution

I meant that in the sense of getting our hopes up about actual implementation. The US Bill of Rights guaranteed certain rights but exceptions were certainly made. The language of the US Constitution is certainly high minded, but the implementation of full freedom has taken over two centuries.

Keep in mind that the framers of the Iraqi Constitution will not necessarily run the future government. Some will, of course, but not all.

To hope for a fully developed democracy to spring up anywhere is exceedingly naive. This, however, is a good beginning.

I return that this is simply an illogical assumption.

Iraq will be far more democratic than the United States was at its inception that much is certain.

Expecting great things is not naivety at all, no rule holds that all situations will take the same time to develop.

I believe it was about seven years after the revolution that the US formed a consitution.

Iraq is already much farther ahead on the time scale.

The point is don't try and parade "common sense" around as reasoning.

Turnea it seems you are basing your ideas on the text of a document and how quickly they developed it. I don't believe the text of the document is going to be the reality in Iraq. Let's look at the text of the Constitution of Saudi Arabia:


Protecting human rights in Saudi Arabia? Please! Just because they write it and vote on it doesn't mean it's going to happen. You have to look at the influences the framers of this constitution are under. They have to make the wording general enough to appease the Shiites, Sunnies, Kurds, and yes, even the Christian population in Iraq. They have help and pressure from the US to make the constitution "Western" enough, with equality for all etc etc. They have pressure from the US to hit certain deadlines. The framers know no one group is going to be able to get the text exactly as they'd like it but they're willing to bend and allow some things to slide in order to hit their deadlines and get the thing finished. I agree with Amlord that the implementation is what's going to be important and given the demographics in Iraq, I think things are going to get pretty bumpy.

Key difference is that the Iraqi constitution also includes the infrastructure for enforcement of laws concerning human rights.

In Saudia Arabia the head of state is a permanent autocrat, hence enforcement can be ignored without fear of retribution.

As a democratic government it has accountability to the public built in.

I am loath to to assume anything definite, but as of right now, Iraqi law is lightyears ahead of Saudia Arabia.


That is simply an assumption and frankly is is tiresome to hear them paraded around as they always are in Iraq threads.

Of course implementation is what's important, but seeing as that is in the unforeseeable future it really isn't the point of this thread.

The fact is the overwhelming majority of Iraqi support human rights and democracy and it is written into their fundamental law with enforcement provisions.

Actually, it's not impossible. Turkey does it, and quite simply, but not stating that Islam is the official religion...even though it is the religion of something like 99% of their people. However, as you point out, Iraq is definitely NOT going this route. So, the implications of that will be interesting....



I think the interpretation here will depend on the specific rights and freedoms outlined. Because it will be quite easy for all three of these statements to contradict...you could have a rule of Islam, which people rebel against, and which contradicts a basic right and freedom. I think the rules of Islam are probably more strict in this sense than you put forth, Amlord, in that this is laying the groundwork for Sharia law, but with the restrictions being placed upon that that it can't contradict the principles of democracy or the basic rights and freedoms outlined. I have not seen what those are, but it certainly seems that something along the lines of the Bill of Rights will need to be incorporated to make this workable.

I includes the details on the "specific rights" listed in an earlier post along with a link to the Full draft text.

To recap:






Among others...

It's not as thorough as the bill of rights, but is has 14th amendment like protections built right in.

A link to the full text is below so that everyone can evaluate it for themselves.

Link

I'm curious as to why you are so quick to dismiss the pressures that the framers are under. They're hardly an assumption.

Pressure to hit deadlines:



The pressure from the US is obvious.


Compromises:


It is true that Iraqis favor human rights and democracy but democracy/Human Rights and Islam are not diametrically opposing forces as some would have you think. What is going to cause the conflict between Iraqis is what "version" or "brand" of Islam is going to be followed and how much of a role will it play. Those are the issues that are not being addressed in the Constitution.

I fully agree. Without knowing enough about the fundamental differences between Shiite and Sunni Islam, I am at least informed and believe that the differences are, in fact, "fundamental." A Constitution that does not develop out of compromise between these two religions will not succeed in the long run.

Though it was over 210 years ago and in a relatively secular context, the Constitutional democracy forged in this country was the result of compromise between two fundamentally opposing philosophies: centralized government vs. states rights. This debate continues today and underscores so many of the issues pervading America today. However, they are hashed out on a (relatively) level playing field, in large part because of the protections for each view that were contained in the Constitution.

This will not be possible in Iraq unless the document that is forged somehow takes into account whatever tensions there are between Sunni and Shiite philosophies, while also taking into account the needs of the Kurds. Rushing into a Constitutional democracy that does not reflect this compromise is doomed from the start -- instead of a Sunni dictator oppressing Shiites, a Shiite Constitution will oppress Sunnis, and "freedom and liberty" will not reign for all.

I realize this is all an oversimplification, but from a Summit of Mount Everest level, I can't help but see a long-term train wreck down the line if this Constitution is rushed through...

I do not disagree that they are under pressure. I disagree as to your characterization of their response to that pressure.


They actually are addressed to some extent in the constitution. The constitution references the undisputed principles of Islam.

From what I know of the Sunni/Shia divide (explained to me by a Sunni Muslim friend) the differences in theology are quite minor compared with the differences between Christian denominations.

They agree on far more than they disagree on.

Then why is this Shia-Sunni divide threatening civil war in Iraq?

Why is it that the Protestant/Catholic violence has largely been resolved but the Shia/Sunni divide is strong enough to determine a type of theocratic nationalism?

To me the constitution the Iraqis are trying to cobble is the same stuff that Stalin and Churchill and FDR thought they could create in Poland after World War II. They wanted a representative government in Poland that was friendly to the Soviet Union.

I believe a key element to successful democratic governments is a separation between church and state. Without it there is the jeopardy of members of one sect or religion being more equal than others. Israel has actually done a pretty good job walking through this difficult area of having a de facto JEwish state but many Muslim citizens who enjoy full citizenship rights.

Turkey has achieved democracy by having the military be the branch of the government that moves in to remove Islamism as it gets elected into the government. But many militaries that practice these benign coups eventually go whole hog into dictatorship.

Pakistan understands where that can happen.

Islam will be an element of this constitution. And only time will tell what interpretations of the Constitution that seems to promise everything all at once would bring. That is of course if the Sunni provinces don't reject it because there concerns were not addressed by this draft.

Now, IMHO, I don't see the seeds of a stable democracy. I see a future of limited democracy with theocracy or dictatorship stepping in to resolve disputes and assert control. This is the the way attempted democracies have generally turned out in the Islamic world.

Turkey has done the best. Pakistan and Egypt and Iraq went the way of dictatorship.

Iran and Algeria and for a time Afghanistan went the way of theocracy.

In trying to alter cultures the United States is going beyond where its muscle can prevail.

Interesting question. The true (if possibly confusing) answer is that it isn't.

That is to say that the theology of the matter has precious little to do with with the current conflict.

The political history of oppression of the Shia by Saddam Hussein who happened to be a Sunni and made use of tribal loyalties in that sect to maintain powers is the true source of the problem.

..but even here civil war is not in the making.


You would then count out a number of European governments who have official national churches funded by tax payer dollars.

I prefer the separation myself, but that is not the opinion of all democratic states.

Even if Iraq is more beholden to Islamic law that does not preclude human rights. An interesting NYT piece with sample fromd Ayatollah Sistani's website advice.
Getting Personal: Advice From Ayatollah Sistani on Marriage, McDonald's and More


..and what makes you think Muslim culture is a primary factor in the "failure" of democracy in these countries?

My goodness it was only a few decades ago when Europe itself was rife with dictators, their culture had nothing to do with it. Economic and political realities did.

The same goes for the Muslim world, Dictators thrived in these areas because there states we first allowed to fail under the crumbling Ottomans. Than colonized by greedy European powers and then isolated when they couldn't be held as colonies.

The main thing it takes to move beyond that history is the will of the populace to do so. Iraqis seem to have that will, so I don't see what use the pessimism is.

Turnea I tend to avoid these points of debate with you because our main differences are in assumptions and conclusions and not on fact. I grant that you make some good points in the above posts, but I don't think the Islam-state connection in the new Iraqi government is going to be the same as the tax money supporting churches in countries like Norway and Germany.
But you've made a strong counterpoint there and I grant it to you.

On another point although I believe my sloppy use of language has misled you about my meaning.

I do not believe that Islamic culture on its own prevents democracy. However the combination of factors that have created a political culture in the Middle East and a few surrounding regions that aren't entirely Arab (therefore I used the Muslim generlization for lack of something useful) I don't think climate, religion or ethnicity are the determining factors here, but we are trying to instill a democratic culture that i think most Americans would expect to mirror ours. Here I look at the conservative philospher Edmund Burke as he observed the French Revolution as something trying to graft English systems onto French ones to disastrous result.

The governments that have existed in this region have not been democratic. I think the the key element is economic (note the key instead of a key). And mainly that is the development of a propertied middle class. I think democracy the way we see it is tied to modern industrial society. Industrial development tends to create a larger group of people with wealth who then seek greater participation in their government.




I argue that if Iraqis truly had that will they would have created a democracy. At this point we are trying to foster that will. Yet in our present role we undermine even the people who believe in democratic reforms because we are seen as the invader/occupier.

How would American feel if we had become a dictatorship about the country that came in and delivered us our freedom and started reworking our government.

How would many Americans view those who used force against this occupying army? Would they have vocal and tacit supporters?

You don't see the use of pessimism in this case, I don't see the use of optimism in hoping to lay down a model of democracy that we arrogantly expect will reshape the region.

When I say culture, I mean that I don;t think people respect the attempts at political change from the outside. They will submit to it by force. But that submission is not the stuff of democracy. That change needs to come from within and I believe it needs to be independent to be effective.

This is an arrogant policy. I don't believe it will work in one year, five years or twenty five years. So I think pessimism will help trim the number of years that a failing policy is pursued.

but at the end of the day this is a fairly pointless debate, because you see that glass as three-quarters full and rising and I see it as a quarter full and dropping.

I see a country threatening to go into civil war and a region that will possibly be torn apart by it if the Irani and Turkish Kurds try to split off. I see a real rift between Shia and Sunnis that permeates the Islamic world, and you see a type of nationalism that has been fostered by Saddam Hussein's persecution of Iraqi Shia.

I disagree with economics as the primary trigger here After all Iraq did have a burgeoning middle class for some time. It was heavily damaged by sanctions, but it still exists.

Arab states are very industrialized, mainly by necessity as agriculture wasn't exactly a cash cow in the area.

I suspect the primary reason is political. I think that the freefall after the Ottoman Empire and Imperial European powers coming to pick up the pieces kept Arab politics extremely unstable until quite recently. The added pressures of the Cold War with dictators being propped up by competing Superpowers didn't help either.

That is why I believe the current venture has such a good chance. The political reality has been changed drastically. Sort of a political "shock therapy."


That's a common assumption, but I feel it is mistaken. Iraq's history has been one of popular suppression, from the Ottoman's, to the British, to the Baath Party.

The fact is Iraqis tried frequently to increase popular control in rebellion, even using the Iran-Iraq war as a timing opportunity. Saddam's forces remained simply too strong for them to beat.

This was back when the Iraqi military still had tanks and helicopters.


I imagine I'd feel pretty darn good.

The fact is even in polls of Iraq after the war the Iraqis have come to the majority conclusion that the war was "worth it".


How exactly is facilitating free elections an act of subjugation?

The Iraqi are clearly being allowed to proceed down their own path, there's noting arrogant about this.


There is a wider rift you speak of, but form what I see it is not particularly deep. You will note that the Kurds who are themselves Sunni Arabs have no problem with Iraqi Shia.

All politics is local.

Okay, I'll bite for another round. It seems a lot like a joust starting in the middle with two opponents charging away from each other until one falls off.

You place a high amount of credibility from polling data. The reality of today's Iraq is that most media members do not feel secure enough to leave highly controlled areas. Perhaps these are scientific polls that capture the true mood of Iraqi and are conducted in native language by Iraqis. Yet I don't trust the polling data you do.

I guess this concludes our points with this second snippet. When we arrived we expected to be received as saviors bringing liberty. We weren't. We were arrogantly wrong about this.

I would argue that as the majority helps define this new Iraq there will be political fallout (in the US) about the creation of a democratically elected theocratic government. Even if the government is not theocratic but sharia law is a component of this new government, I think critics on the right and the left will question this result and question whether it is a victory for democracy.

The will of the people can choose democratically to create an undemocratic form of government. This new Iraq may actually serve to unify(in the sense of a community of the like-minded) Iran, new Iraq and the elements from Saudi Arabia the seem to have been the inspiration for Al Qaeda.

The polls I refer to are those which are conducted by pollsters that are trusted brand names. I think the one I'm referring to was conducted by Oxford, though I could be mixing it up with an ABC poll.

Either way these were scientific polls conducted in Arabic across the provinces of Iraq.

You may distrust them, but I don't see why.


This is a theoretical possibility, but I have seen precious little of this while following the situation.

The fact is this is entirely unlikely.

I think you are either ignoring the events taking place or your are overly optimistic about the situation.

There are a lot of factors at work that could very well lead to some sort of civil war in Iraq in the near future, a lot of them solidified in the new constitution.

1. Cultural differences - Iraq was only held together in the past because Hussein ruled with an iron fist. Now without that control you see the Kurds seeking independence and you are going to see a lot of payback type decisions made between the Sunnis and Shias. You can already see this in the constitution.

2. Religion - Islam is explicitly written into this new constitution giving unelected clerics the power of law. Without a secular government this is yet another way for the groups to exercise power over each other.

3. Money - I posted this earlier in the thread but the new constitution takes a dangerous position with regards to ownership of oil. It sets up a loose central government and gives ownership of oil and resources to the regions. Guess who doesn't have a lot of oil reserves sitting under their land - the sunnis. It is a very bad idea to set things up such that certain regions will own all of the wealth - the nation should own it.

There are a lot of signs here and I think you are simply ignoring them Turnea. The Sunnis are not happy with the document (that has been in virtually every report on the subject) and violence has been increasing over the past weeks.

I really don't know how you are able to look at those things and say things are going peachy keen.

Heh. Neither.

I've merely been paying very close attention to the situation. The diligent reader will note that according to the media Iraq has been on the "brink of civil war" since almost before the war started.

The diligent reader had better start becoming a skeptical reader as well.


This is a gross oversimplification. Sunni, Shia, and Kurds have been living together in Iraq since centuries before Hussein was born.

There are tensions but they are both more complex and far less threatening than some would have you believe.

Infighting has been quite low among mainstream leaders of each group.


Another oversimplification at best, really more of a distortion. The constitution does not give any clerics the power of law.

Honestly I haven't heard much of the "brink of civil" war stuff in the media but then again I don't listen to televised or radio media, I get everything from online which is probably the only way you can even find remotely impartial sources.

I disagree with the "brink of civil war" line but I do think that based on the events that are unfolding the chances of Iraq being "stable and democratic" (to quote another soundbite) are getting smaller and civil war is a possibility, it has certainly started in the past over much less.


And during that time they've been basically forced to live together in a country that was thrown together by the British (hardly centuries Turnea) and has never been under any sort of rule less than monarchy or dictatorship. Before they were under control by the British they all had their own lands.

This is the first time that these groups have had to actually work together and while there are some enouraging signs there are also a great many signs that things are on the path to dissolution of the country.

Almost everyone currently living there has no memory of anything other than dictatorship.


You are incorrect, the constitution clearly enshrines Islam as the source of law and the clerics play a big part in how that law is interpreted and understood. They hold significantly more power than your local pastor.

Article 2 Para 1: Islam is the official religion of state, and is a fundamental source for legislation.
Article 2 Para 1a: No law may be legislated that contravenes the essential verities of Islamic law.

Secondly, Article 39 states: Iraqis are free to practice personal status matters in accordance with their religions or rites or beliefs or choice. This will be organized by statute.

As many have pointed out this allows matters of civil code to be sorted out accoring to religious law. Again the clerics will play a big role here.

The constitution does not directly give them power, but it certainly does give them indirect power.

No, they didn't.

Although the country was not known by the name Iraq, the actual land area was lived in by Sunni Arabs, Shiite Arabs, and Kurds for centuries.

They were together under the Ottoman Empire.


It wouldn't be the first country put in that position.

The fact is that relations between these different sects have been anything but warlike over the period since the invasion.

One can expect a civil war all day long, that fact is it's not going to happen. At least not down those sectarian lines.


The very quotes you posted betray this point.

Nothing here about giving clerics legal powers. Rather this simply establishes a state religion. The rest of the constitution makes clear that Iraqi are under no obligation to operate under the precepts of the state religion.




For those who chose to do so. This does not equate to giving clerics any binding legal authority.

The fact is the Iraqi constitution is remarkably free considering the possible alternatives. The hand wringing is largely unjustified.

Yeah and what if a husband chooses to go for divorce under islamic law and a wife would prefer secular law? Who do you think is going to win that battle Turnea?

It is justified you just prefer to play games with semantics instead of talking about the actual and potential issues here.

That is an excellent question,although I don't share your underlying assumption.


CJ I think you are mistaking my refusal to pretend this constitution establishes some sort of theocracy or violates basic human rights with the belief that I think the text is perfect.

Of course, it isn't, but it is quite good, far and away the best in the Arab world.

1. Is it possible that Iraqis will opt to be more like Iran and Saudi Arabia than countries like Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Lebanon and Jordan? If so could this still be considered a "Democracy" with some of the rights questions at stake?

If Iraq turns out like Saudi or Iran, it’s safe to say that no, it couldn’t be considered a true democracy. But, I’m going to go out on a limb and say I don’t think this will happen. At least, there isn’t much in the wording of the Constitution to indicate that, which seems to be the thrust of the argument here. If you juxtapose the Iraq Constitutional draft with, for instance, the Iranian constitution there is simply no earthly comparison.

On the other hand, the Bahrain constitution states: ‘The religion of the State is Islam. The Islamic Shari'a is a principal source for legislation’. It is a Constitutional monarchy with democratic representation, and also one of the most westernized countries in the Muslim world. They call it ‘the pearl’, where Allah cannot see into and there are bars and nightclubs where women are free to dance in leapard-print catsuits. It’s a big tourist area.

2. Is this the type of government that the Bush administration had in mind when they set out to liberate Iraq? If not, what action do you foresee the US Government taking if any?

I don’t believe that the Bush administration was prepared for much of what has happened in Iraq…from the looting to the insurgency to the new government. Things haven’t run exactly smoothly, and there are some legitimate concerns about Iran moving in with its influence. That would be very bad. I think Sunni participation in the process is crucial to moderate that influence. I hope that measures are taken to ensure that, somehow. I’m not sure what else we can reasonably do, since free self-determination is the basis for a functional democracy and sovereign state.

I wonder if this article will change your mind about that - story. A few selected quotes:






This story, directly from the people involved in the political process, which describes the tensions there completely refutes your suggestion that things are hunky-dory Turnea. The tension is completely along sectarian lines.

I'd call reprisal killings back and forth (from police officers no less) pretty war-like in my book. Additionally things like this only escalate over time. No one simply stops and says ok that is enough, we'll quit now.

Furthermore I'd think the rejection of this constitution in by 2/3 of people in 3 provinces is a very real possiblity since the Sunnis control 4 of them and are clearly not on board with this.

How does that work? If I want to divorce my wife, and I want the matter heard in a religious court, but she wants it heard in civil court, then what happpens? She goes to her preferred court and I go to mine?

You will note this is a suggestion I never made. It wouldn't be the first time a story like this has come in, it won't be the last.

The fact is, extremists pockets aside sectarian violence has no grassroots support in Iraq.

The people in your article aren't exactly mainstream Iraqis.

Those who are speak entirely differently...

Sunnis Protest New Constitution in Iraq

No one denied there was tension, but I said it before and I'll say it again an again. There will be no civil war along sectarian lines.

There wasn't when Ayatollah Mohammed Baqr al-Hakim was murdered in a car bombing, there sure as heck won't be one over this.

In reading the text of the proposed constitution, the debate questions may be moot. Minority religious rights are expressly guaranteed. This is a loooooong way from Saudi or Iran.

from the constitution text