Well, they’ve gone through two extensions on the previously “firm” Aug 15th deadline… Then today, this:
- BAGHDAD, Iraq – Parliament announced it had no plans to meet Thursday night and no date for a future session, signaling Iraqi factions were failing to reach agreement on a new constitution before a self-imposed midnight target.
The statement from National Assembly’s top spokesman, Bishro Ibrahim, came as negotiators struggled for consensus on a draft by the close of a 72-hour extension granted Monday night by parliament, after Sunni Arabs blocked a vote on a charter accepted by Shiite and Kurdish negotiators.
As y’all will remember, unlike most members of the western media I decided not to become obsessed with every little tidbit of “news” that came out of the past month’s-worth of constitutional talks. (Here and here.)
In fact, it would be possible to make the argument that holding the permanent-constitution talks right now, under the present circs, was almost guaranteed to lead to an escalation of the tensions inside the still extremely fragile and tension-riven country. I didn’t really make that argument in those earlier posts. I didn’t want to be a complete naysayer on the constitutional venture… I just thought the conduct of the talks (held inside the Green Zone, by the strange variety of Iraqis who inhabit it) seemed completely tangential to what is going inside huge areas of the rest of the country.
I remember at one point ten days or so ago when I was checking in on the “Iraq slideshow” on my Yahoo newsfeed, how striking were the contrasts between the images of a very “well-fed”, happy, well-dressed-looking Talabani laughing and joking in various poses and the other terrible images of carnage and mayhem throughout the country; or of a small, under-nourished boy in a Baghdad slum standing amidst a vast pool of sewage sludge on the street outside his home…
Well anyway, now it looks as though this round of the constitution talks is headed south, fast.
Maybe the Bushies won’t even be able to succeed in getting a completely phony piece of paper out there called “Iraqi Constitution”, to help them cover their behinds as they, too, head south out of the country?
Maybe they will just have to leave the country, admitting that they haven’t, actually, had any real success at all in transforming it into a haven of democracy…
But we knew that already, didn’t we? Was any of us going to be fooled by that piece of paper? I really don’t think so…
George: just get out!
The Shi’i are, between the quasi-government and the militias, sorting out security in areas in which they predominate (albeit with too much ethnic cleansing already). In terms of instability, the Arab Sunnis hold the key: they cannot be ignored, it seems, given that some elements are intent on disrupting the Kurdish and Shi’i areas and the others are generally not stopping them. -prior comment by Charles Murd
So, yesterday we had a Shi’i militia attacking another Shi’i militia, and fighting in several cities. I don’t think this is a Sunni-Shi’i thing anymore, if it ever was. I think it just shows that WAR MAKES WAR, and it also seems to me that the seeds for the next war are always being planted as the current war is going on. When will we ever learn that if war (and violence) worked, we would have solved a few problems by now?
Mr. Murd also stated that the US does not want to be in Iraq. I don’t think that is true for Bush & company, and I also don’t think they will leave until and unless WE MAKE THEM. To all Americans: get busy! Get creative! Only you can stop this insanity!
It never was a Sunni/Shi`a thing. To a great extent it’s about individuals jockying for personal power. The U.S. and its henchmen have done a great job of fostering divisions among groups, and turning Iraqi politics into politics by identity rather than political ideology.
I agree with Shirin. And a lot of the outside actors in this violence are also going for personal power – control over the area and the resources.
And I may be hoping in vain, but I hope it does not spread into a Saudi/Iran/Turkey/god-knows-who-else conflict.
Shirin-being 7000 miles away it is hard to know much of what is going on in Iraq. Your voice is a welcome addition to the stuff coming out of the ‘Green Zone” those reporters feed us. This site and Juan Cole’s site also helps. I remember reading on riverbend a post that reflects your statement above. She said that most families have Sunni/Shi`in them and many friends of both groups, I was surprised. Most here in the US believe that they are death to the end enemies. Bush also benefits from the divide and conquer polarization, where regular Iraqi’s who just want basic services are left out of the equation. One of Cole’s recent posts from a reader shed more light on this spoon fed misconception. Do you agree with it as well? What ever happened to riverbend? Was she freaked out by Khalid’s arrest? i miss reading her posts.
Thanks for sending me this Helena.
It looks inevitable now that Sadr will go into insurgent mode if the Kurds/Shia ram federalism down the throat of the Sunni and Baghdad residents.
Welcome to Lebanon times infinity.
Shirin,
“It never was a Sunni/Shi`a thing. To a great extent it’s about individuals jockying for personal power. The U.S. and its henchmen”
Yes you are right.
In 1900 Britts came they Created States and Borders and set Pro-Britts regimes across the ME in what they clamed and promised Libration from Othman.
Now GWB came with New ME with Democracy and Freedom.
His Think-Tank created Suni-Shii, Kurs Turkmans and so on and so forth with your media propaganda showed you this is a big discovery in a new Iraq!!!! More than that some Think-Tank went more saying Iraq never been!!, its multi-ethnics holding the power!!!
Like this one “Peter W. Galbraith ” living in ARBIL (Kurdish area)
Iraq: Bush’s Islamic Republic
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/081005F.shtml
The constitution and the Kurds
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/07/25/the_constitution_and_the_kurds?mode=PF
Let them dream, wait and the time will let them learn as they learning for more that two years.
Sadr will go into insurgent mode= Resistance Mode
What I read suggests to me that the fault lines in Iraq are not so much religious (Sunni/Shi`a) as urban/rural. This is strongly suggested by the recent outbreak of fighting between Sadr’s militia (largely Baghdad slum-based, from what I understand) and the Badr Brigades. Sadr has often appeared more closely aligned with the largely urban-based Sunni resistance, than with the Shi`a leadership of the more rural south. One could make loose comparisons with the American Civil War, which was largely about the competing economic systems of the urbanized North vs. the rural South.
This are just observations from a million miles away. Salah, Shirin, what do you think?
Just my opinion, but I think the split is pro-occupation forces and anti-occupation forces.
How about Bourgeois and Proletarian?
“Sadr will go into insurgent mode”
I agree with Salah. Let’s call it by its real name and not use the propaganda word promoted by the Bush P.R. machine. The word is resistance, not insurgent.
Dear John C.,
Thanks for asking, in fact Al-Sadar more respectable and got more sympathy by Iraqis (Suni/Shiiat)his father was very known figure he was a very dominant in Najaf and south, the reality is Iraqi in urban area less care about Cleric than rural areas for two reasons
1- The residence of urban area are more educated and most of them employee, where the rural area mostly farmers in a small villages and towns the loyalty still for the tribes figures.
2- The Cleric in Najaf and Karbalah both had many times internal problem which is straggle between Iranian leadership and Arab leadership, this is a problem here we facing two faction of Shiiat. One Iraqi/Iranian type the second is Arab Iraqi type most, but there is as I said struggled who holding the power?
The Iranian influence through years when the Shiia having a problem with the central government the fact Iraqi shiia seems or suffered from the central government as they marked with Shiiat Pro Iranian/Iranian background, that
The Daily Telegraph today reports that the Shi’ite warlord Sadr is battling the Shi’ite [Iran-backed] Badr Brigade. Sadr is now allied with Sunni militias to oppose what he sees is the edge of the overt Iranian wedge into Iraqi politics. It appears Shirin is correct that this is a battle between warlords and will devolve into personal militias as did Lebanon and Afghanistan.
Had Gen. Garner and his State Dept aides not been cashiered in favor of the Pentagoon [sic] politico L. Paul Bremer, much of the bumbling that has turned US policy in Iraq into a shambles might have been avoided.
Now Bush has to jawbone and strongarm the fissiparous and fragmentary pieces of Iraq into some semblance of a polity. I don’t envy Bush the task and don’t think his numbnut pal Rumsfeld has a clue.
The unity must be engendered by Iraqis, who appear to prefer oil-money and Federalism to a single state.
Looks like a rerun of the 1920 elections which the Shi’a sat out, with the consequence that the Sunnis ran the country for 75 years.
Did the US win a chunk for Iran?
But what hasn’t been on the table is at least as important to the formation of a new Iraq: the country’s economic structure.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/24307/
“So long as I am President, we will stay, we will fight and we will win the war!!
Old wards from another leader….
US DOMOCRACY
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/24599/
“Bush has to jawbone and strongarm the fissiparous and fragmentary pieces of Iraq into some semblance of a polity.”
No, he most certainly does not! Hasn’t he bloody done enough?! He has to butt out and let Iraqis figure out their own situation, for better or for worse.
سألوني من أين أنت؟ أجبت، من العراق.. قالوا
من أين؟ قلت من العراق..
نعم، نعم…. أمن الشمال أم الجنوب؟ أجبت، من
العراق.. العراق!! ماذا
جرى؟ ماذا يجري؟ فجأة يطلب مني الجميع أن
احدد هويتي!! هويتي هي
العراق… لا يكفي، يجب ان تحددي… من الشمال
أم الجنوب؟؟ حسنا.. وما
http://www.iraqoftomorrow.org/viewarticle.php?id=32025&pg=articles
And I may be hoping in vain, but I hope it does not spread into a Saudi/Iran/Turkey/god-knows-who-else conflict.
Look for Iran, the Evil (the only truth the GWB spoke ever)
At this point in time all of the religious militias under their respective clerics are jockeying for power. The moderates and seculars, who should have been our allies, if you can have an ally in this God for saken war have been abandoned. Christians, those moderates who still believe in Democracy, are too afraid to speak out now. Seed with winds and harvest hurricanes.
It looks inevitable now that Sadr will go into insurgent mode if the Kurds/Shia ram federalism down the throat of the Sunni and Baghdad residents.
Sadr’s a Shi’ite, so why would he do that?
At any rate, the full text of the draft constitution leaves me wondering exactly what the Sunnis’ objections are. The relevant articles are 109-10 (oil and gas are national property to be distributed to ensure even development), 111 (all powers not given exclusively given to the federal government are reserved to the regions), 113 (any one or more provinces can form a region), and 116 (regions may modify federal law except in areas of exclusive federal competence). So the Sunnis aren’t facing the loss of oil revenue, nor are they facing any loss of autonomy – they can form one or more regions, and they can use their modification power to ensure secular rule. The only thing they are losing is the power to dominate everyone else.
Sadr will go into insurgent mode= Resistance Mode
If he goes into rebellion over the constitution, then he’ll be rebelling against a document authored by an elected Iraqi council (relatively few of whom can be described as collaborators) rather than against the occupation. “Insurgent” would be the proper word.
”Was any of us going to be fooled by that piece of paper”
Helena nether Iraqis not just you.
GWB&Co miss read the history of Iraq, We Gave the World the First Code of Law ”Hammurabi Codes”
”To bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.”
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM.‎
This Piece of Paper I think when US hidings south better to take it with them, don
Salah, thanks for your comments. I only know enough about Iraq to be certain that our Dear Leader and his buddies in the oil industry have no hope of imposing their will on that country – never, no way.
Peace.
“Sadr’s a Shi’ite, so why would he do that?”
Perhaps because, like most Iraqis, he is first and Iraqi, second a Shi’ite.
Squeaky,
“most families have Sunni/Shi`in them and many friends of both groups”
I don’t know whether most families are mixed or not – there may have been some studies in that regard, but I am not a sociologist, so am not aware of them. But here are some things I do know:
1. Intermarriage among nearly all Iraqi sects and ethnicities is very common and generally considered unremarkable. Sunni/Shi`a marriages are probably the most common, Arab/Kurd intermarriage is also quite common, Arab/Turkmen is also not unheard of as are Kurd/Turkmen (I know people who are a mix of Arab/Kurd/Turkmen, and who are fluent in all three languages). It is not at all unheard of or very remarkable for a Christian woman to marry a Muslim man, though the reverse is rare because it is not allowed in Islam unless the man will convert. I personally know one Yezidi/Assyrian couple. I do not personally know of any cases of Jews intermarrying with other groups, but I do know that it occurred, and in fact some of the Jews who remained in Iraq until very recently did so because they were married to Muslim or Christian Iraqis. (The Jews of Iraq are a whole other, very interesting, subject.)
2. When it comes to picking friends and associates, sect or ethnicity have been just about the last considerations for the overwhelming majority of people. Iraqis establish and maintain friendships based on the same criteria other people in the world do.
3. All of the large Arab tribes and most of the smaller ones are mixed Sunni Shi`a. For tribal (as opposed to urban) people, tribe is a far stronger bond than is sect. For most urban people tribe, sect, and ethnicity are irrelevant. Further, many urban people are secular, regardless of their family background.
4. All regions in Iraq contain a mixture consisting of most or all of the major religious/ethnic groups. Neighborhoods in urban areas tend to be mixed, particularly in the middle to upper income areas. Even in places like Sadr City (aka Saddam City, formerly Al Thawra) there are Sunnis, and I remember even hearing of Christians living there, though I do not know that for a fact.
5. Prior to the “liberation” and (calculated or inadvertent) extreme factionalization of the country by the occupiers, political affiliations in Iraq were based mainly on ideology, not identity. (The Kurds, due to their separatist factions, were somewhat of an exception, but not as great as most people seem to think.) This was particularly true of the Ba`th party. Most Americans do not know, of course, that the Ba`th party is anything but a Sunni party. For starters it was founded by a Christian. It is (or at least was) a pan-Arab secular socialist party. However, the definition of Arab is so broad that it includes any and all of the “Arabized” peoples. The Ba`th party in Iraq provided more political opportunities to Shi`as, and to ethno/linguistic minorities than had been available before, and had committed members from virtually all Iraqi groups.
“I was surprised. Most here in the US believe that they are death to the end enemies.”
Sure, because that is the rubbish you keep hearing from all the so-called “Iraq experts”, and it is the “received” version. I even read an article from a supposed “journalist” that asserted that Sunnis and Shi`as have been slaughtering each other for 2,000 years. Apparently this “journalist” and his publication’s fact checkers (which was a major one in the U.S.) did not bother to find out that neither Sunnis nor Shi`as existed 2,000 years ago.
“Bush also benefits from the divide and conquer polarization, where regular Iraqi’s who just want basic services are left out of the equation.”
Of course, regular Iraqis have never been part of the equation.
My sense has always been that the extreme polarization and now the politics of identity that have developed under “liberation” are not the result of a calculated plan, but are an unforeseen consequence of utter, abject, abysmal ignorance and incompetence on the part of the “liberators”.
“One of Cole’s recent posts from a reader shed more light on this spoon fed misconception. Do you agree with it as well?”
From what I recall of that post, I agree with it almost completely.
“What ever happened to riverbend? Was she freaked out by Khalid’s arrest? i miss reading her posts.”
Well, River’s posts became few and far between some time ago, much to my disappointment also. She became quite depressed and discouraged, as we all have, and felt less motivated, it seems. I have experienced the same thing. Whereas I used to make regular mailings to my email list of people interested in information and commentary about Iraq, I have made very few mailings in the past several months.
John C., I agree quite closely with Salah in what he replied to you.
“What I read suggests to me that the fault lines in Iraq are not so much religious (Sunni/Shi`a) as urban/rural.”
I have never seen any great “fault lines” between urban and rural in Iraq, and I don’t see it now. What I see now is “fault lines” between those who see themselves as benefitting from the occupation, and those who are hurt by it. I also see “fault lines” between the various individuals and groups who are vying for power.
“This is strongly suggested by the recent outbreak of fighting between Sadr’s militia (largely Baghdad slum-based, from what I understand) and the Badr Brigades. Sadr has often appeared more closely aligned with the largely urban-based Sunni resistance, than with the Shi`a leadership of the more rural south.”
I don’t agree with this analysis. Sadr’s support and power are hardly limited to Baghdad, but are quite widespread and extend to several parts of the country, including Basra. The so-called “Sunni” resistance is also not particularly “urban based”.
It is (or at least was) a pan-Arab secular socialist party.
http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/L/Joshua.M.Landis-1/syriablog/2004/07/is-bathism-secular.htm
“The whole notion of a
Pratap,
Just shows that anyone can spout anything you want on the web if you know how to look for it. The Ba`th ideology is indeed a secular socialist one no matter what kind of nonsense Mr. Landis or anyone else wants to spout.
Jonathan Edelstein:
Sadr’s a Shi’ite, so why would he do that?
I don know your familiarity with the Iraqi society? Is your thoughts and observation built on your feeding media
The Ba`th ideology is indeed a secular socialist one no matter what kind of nonsense Mr. Landis or anyone else wants to spout.
indeed, i’m sure that qu’ran written in hussein’s blood, the kalima on the iraqi flag, aflaq’s conversion to islam etc have not much to do with your clinically pure [and somewhat notional] secular ba’athist ideology. and the ussr had nothing to do with marxism.
Pratap, I am afraid you are confusing the frantic efforts of a failing dictator to Pander to certain elements with Ba`thism.
The oscenity of the Qur’an written in Saddam’s blood, the “kalima” added to the flag, and that horror the “Saddam Mosque” he was building have nothing whatever to do with Ba`thism, and everything to do with a desperate dictator seeking to make allies wherever he thought he could find them.
“The Ba`th ideology is indeed a secular socialist one”
To some of you who don
”One of Iraq’s leading psychiatrists, Dr Harith Hassan, believes the country may be the most psychologically damaged in the world, thanks not just to 25 years of Saddam Hussein’s murderous regime, but the past 2-1/2 years of violence.
Salah,
Sure Ba’ath ideology is “socialist” and “secular”. That is the means of production could be nationalized for the benefit of the ruling elite who could use some of that money to purchase whisky. So what? Stalinist/Marxist ideology was also nomninally “socialist” and definitely “secular”. So was the German National Socialist Party ideology, for that matter.
As for Michel Aflaq, I think that a major impetus for him, and for other Christians (and Alawis, if one considers it), was to establish a nationilst counter to the Ikhwan.
Actually, JES, in the first decade and a half or so of Ba`th rule in Iraq national wealth was used very well for the benefit of the people. Iraq was considered to have the best distribution of oil wealth to the population of any oil producing country. During that period Iraq made great strides in its education and medical systems, and all areas of civilian infrastructure. Rights and freedoms for women, already some of the most progressive in the Middle East, were also improved. The government established a program to increas women’s literacy in urban and rural areas, and another one to make quality affordable medical care available in all areas of the country.
Shirin,
I believe that the period of the NEP in the Soviet Union was also very positive in a lot of ways, and the Nazis certainly improved the German economy from 1933-1938.
My point is that simply being labeled “socialist” and “secular” does not, a priori, make a movement “good”.
At any rate, during the last three decades or so of Ba’ath rule in Iraq, the situation was much different.
“My point is that simply being labeled “socialist” and “secular” does not, a priori, make a movement “good”.”
Excuse me, but where did I even remotely suggest such a thing? All I did was to point out that the Ba`th party was not a sect-based party, but was in fact a pan-Arab secular socialist party whose definition of Arab was extremely broad and therefore inclusive of all “Arabized” peoples, which is a fact. Nowhere did I suggest that this made it “good”.
Actually, there were some very progressive aspects of Ba`th rule, and for the majority of Iraqis life was not bad at all, and in many ways was more comfortable than ever under Ba`th rule . It was not until the mid ’80’s or so when the war with Iran started to take its toll economically that the situation began to deteriorate. The wanton destruction of the 1991 war, and 13 years of horrific sanctions all but destroyed the country, and “liberation” American style has finished the job.
Shirin,
Excuse me, but I did not suggest that you defined the Ba’ath as “good” because it is “secular” and “socialist”. Those remarks were quite clearly directed to Salah in my original posting. Please go back and read the thread.
Maybe “for the majority of Iraqis life was not bad at all”, but I am personally familiar with some of the “minority” for whom life was terrible (and I know of some, for whom life came to an abrupt end) during the early years of Ba’ath rule in Iraq.
I particularly like the way you say the “the war with Iran started”. Happened just like that, did it? Just kind of “started”. Sort of like spontaneous combustion? The Ba’ath didn’t have anything to do with that.
I guess the war in 1991 also just kind of started spontaneously, and the continuation of the sanctions (as well as the misuse of Oil-for-Food funds) happened without any involvement on the part of the Ba’ath party and its leadership. I also guess that, with the Ba’ath being secular and all, that the words “Allahu Akbar” just kind of appeared spontaneously on the Iraqi flag in 1991 as well?
“Excuse me, but I did not suggest that you defined the Ba’ath as “good” because it is “secular” and “socialist”. Those remarks were quite clearly directed to Salah in my original posting.”
And they were quite clearly addressed to me in your latest, and on that basis I responded to them.
By the way, if anything I think Salah sees less positive about the Ba`thists than I do, so even there it seems you were barking up the wrong tree as they say in America.
“Maybe “for the majority of Iraqis life was not bad at all”, but I am personally familiar with some of the “minority” for whom life was terrible (and I know of some, for whom life came to an abrupt end) during the early years of Ba’ath rule in Iraq.”
I am willing to bet you that my list of those whose lives came to an end during the early years of Ba`th rule is a hell of a lot longer than yours is, and many of those people were themselves Ba`thists of the “wrong” sort. So don’t try to inform those who are far better informed than you will ever be. And by the way based on my experience when I left Iraq for the last time, I have no reason to believe that I would be alive today had I stayed there.
“I particularly like the way you say the “the war with Iran started”.”
And I like even better the way you so blatantly and utterly lamely quoted me out of context in a manner that completely altered my clear meaning. It is a standard – and tiresomely amateurish – debate tactic used by those who blindly argue on behalf of Zionism and Israel. It is particularly silly and lame in this situation given that my original statement is right here on this page for anyone to read, and that anyone with even a modest command of English can see the egregious way in which you tried to alter my meaning completely. Shame, shame, shame on you! Not so much for your dishonesty, but more for your utter incompetence in pulling off your attempted deception.
“Happened just like that, did it? Just kind of “started”. Sort of like spontaneous combustion? The Ba’ath didn’t have anything to do with that.”
As I am sure you are all too aware, being an intelligent person with an excellent command of English, that is not even remotely what I said. What I said was obviously completely different from that and you have obviously deliberately tried to distort it in order to avoid debating what I actually said.
As anyone can see who compares my actual statement with your complete distortion of it, what I said was that life for the majority of Iraqis began to deteriorate when the war with Iran began to have its effect on the country in the mid-80’s or so.
It is obvious now that you are not here to conduct an honest discussion or debate. On that basis I will bid you farewell, as I am not interested in anything further that you might have to say.
Iyad Allawi
Birthplace: Baghdad, Iraq
Religion: Shia Muslim
Level of fame: Famous
Executive summary: former Iraqi Prime Minister
In early 2004 an Arabic newspaper in London published a letter by Dr. Haifa al-Azawi, a former classmate of Allawi’s:
Any physician who graduated from Baghdad Medical School between the years 1962 and 1970 will remember this big, husky man. The Baath party union leader, who carried a gun on his belt and frequently brandished it terrorizing the medical students, was a poor student and chose to spend his time standing in the school courtyard or chasing female students to their homes.
When I entered medical school, Iyad Allawi was a student there and when I graduated he was still a student there. He tried to form a political party and, according to some friends of his, he faked names to make the party seem larger than it really was. His medical degree is bogus and was conferred upon him by the Baath party, soon after a WHO (World Health Organization) grant was orchestrated for him to go to England and study public health accompanied by his Christian wife, whom he dumped later to marry a Muslim woman.
In England he was a poor student, visiting the Iraqi embassy at the end of each month to collect his salary as the Baath party representative. According to his first wife and her family members, he spent his time dealing with assassins doing the dirty work for the Iraqi government, until his time was up and he became their target.
Wife: (Christian, divorced)
Wife: (Muslim)
University: MS Science, London University
Medical School: MD, London University
Assassination Attempt 20-Apr-2005 (suicide car bomb)
Shirin,
First of all, I have to apologize. After reading it again, I see that your statement was actually not the way I originally perceived it, and was, indeed meant to convey something else. Again, my apologies for not reading carefully prior to respopnding.
That said, I think that the following statement is out of line and a distinctly unfair and inaccurate generalization:
“It is a standard – and tiresomely amateurish – debate tactic used by those who blindly argue on behalf of Zionism and Israel.”
I hope that you will reconsider the veracity of what you have written.
This following statement of yours reinforces, I believe, my argument completely:
“I am willing to bet you that my list of those whose lives came to an end during the early years of Ba`th rule is a hell of a lot longer than yours is, and many of those people were themselves Ba`thists of the “wrong” sort. So don’t try to inform those who are far better informed than you will ever be. And by the way based on my experience when I left Iraq for the last time, I have no reason to believe that I would be alive today had I stayed there.”
That is all I was trying to say in the first place. You will recall that Saddam Hussein was, in essence, an “enforcer” during those years, culling Ba’athists, as you say “of the wrong sort”, as well as others.
It is interesting that many opponents of the US, and particularly of George Bush and his current administration, argue today that that the US is guilty for making precisely the same kind of calculus that you put forward, i.e. that Saddam and the Ba’athists may have been bad, but that they were the lesser of two evils!
Salah,
This information on Iyad Allawi would have been interesting a year ago, but what exactly is its relevance today?
Shirin,
What JES mean “of the wrong sort” I think these type “of the wrong sort”
more…..
Saddam
JES and Shirin’s discussion concerning the baath party and its ideology is interesting. It points to a serious issue : how far is an institution linked to its leaders ? Shouldn’t we make a distinction between an institution plus a set of values or political ideals on one side (aka, bathism, socialism, panarabism, secularism) and the men who lead that institution on the other side (a harsh dictator, Saddam, and his blind/interested followers).
JES quoted nazism and IMO nazism had a criminal ideology at its chore, so the outcome could only be bad. (BTW, the nazism were christians, they aggressed the communists because they were atheists among other reasons, they also promoted the three Ks for women : KKK Kinder, Kuche, Kirche : children, cooking and church).
JES also mentionned the former USSR and marxism in his list. I’d say that stalinism, like Saddam’s regime was a totalitarian one, but this doesn’t mean that socialism and marxism are bad in themselves, as was nazism.
I think that the same is valid for the founding ideology of the bathism. As Shirin said, it had a lot of merit.
Last but not least, Bush and his clique are well on their way to forge a criminal world order, with US acting second the law of the strongest and waging an imperial policy toward the rest of the world. This ideology has many aspects in common with the nazism (they thought they were an elite, the best apt to lead Europe if not the entire world, like the arrogant Bushies pretend to achieve). However, do you think that the US institutions are bad because the Bushies have confiscated it ?
Personnally there are many values of the US capitalist system which I don’t share. In all modern democracies there is a mix of “liberty, equality, fraternity). US is too much on the side of economic liberty; I prefer a real equality and even what I’d call solidarity (rather than fraternity). On this side of the scale, both the socialist and the baathist ideology offers things the US system doesn’t and I wish the Iraqi would be able to keep it. Alas, while all the attention are focused on the bogus constitution, the industry minister right now says that the Iraqi state enterprise are going to be privatized.
Christiane,
Please allow me to make the following comments on your posting.
First off, you choose to separate Nazi ideology by asserting that it was “criminal at its” core. While, I believe that the Nazis were psychopathic criminals, I am not sure that the original ideology (a mix of nationalism and socialism) was any more or less “criminal at their core” than were a host of other ideologies and movements that grew out of 19th century German historicism and evolutionary theory.(This by the way, includes the works of Karl Marx!)
In any event, simply defining an ideology or movement as “criminal at its core” is a bit of a cop out. I believe that the same argument was used by Americans and British following after 1917 to describe “Bolshevism”. (After all, what could be more criminal that intending to steal property from its owners and nationalize it?)
You then try to apply this same tactic to Bush, because you don’t like him or what he stands for. I think you’re wrong so long as he abides by the Constitution and our friends here can openly and freely discuss pretty much whatever they feel like discussing without fear of retribution.
I also believe that you are mistaken when you claim that Nazi ideology was “Christian”. I believe that if you check it out you will find that the ideology, as presented by Hitler and his henchmen, was to supplant Christianity as an ideology. As to their aggressive opposition to Communism, I think it rather simplistic to attribute this to a response to atheism. In their sick and criminal minds, Hitler and his ilk were able to build a much more comprehensive case against the Bolsheviks (that included, among other things, the presence of a large number of Jews in their ranks).
Now, let’s look at the former USSR and the Marxism foisted there on the people for some 80 years. Is the only thing wrong Stalinism? It would be easy to blame everything on the little Georgian with the crippled arm – and he certainly is one of the outstanding and most criminially psychopathic beasts of the 20th century – but I don’t believe that he was the sole cuplrit by any means. I think that, if you bother to check, it was actually V.I. Lenin who first explicitly advocated terror to bring the populace into line around the revolution. Sure, Stalin perfected the implementation of the policy and based it on his own cult of personality, but Lenin thought of it. And why is it that so many similar disasters have happened in ostensibly Marxist societies, including Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia and Caucescu’s Romania? Could it indicate an inherent problem with the ideology? Perhaps it’s the fact, to paraphrase you, that the Bolsheviks and other Marxist revolutionaries tend to think of themselves as a “vanguard” who are best able, and entitled to lead the entire world!
I believe that it is ideology itself which is the problem. We take it for granted that “ideology” means to envision an ideal, but it doesn’t. Ideology is dogma (or at least very rapidly becomes dogma) about how we must view reality. Communism is an ideology. Nazism is an ideology, and so is Fascism, and I believe that more people have died as a result of ideological conflicts in the 20th century than from all the religious wars that went before.
Neither “democracy” nor “capitalism” are ideologies (although “Americanism” might be). Further, I don’t see what’s so positive about Ba’athism or Pan-Arabism, or why the Iraqi people would be better off with either.
What I do find most discomfiting, however, is the tendency to negativism about the Iraqi constitution and the political process in general. Reading the original posting here, it is almost as if the author is glad that things aren’t going smoothly with the new constitution. Further, we have people like Salah who apparently choose to ignore two important facts. First, as Jonathan has so clearly pointed out, this constitution is being drafted by an assembly freely elected by Iraqis and will be ratified by the electorate. That’s an extremely important step, and something I don’t recall the Ba’ath or any of the Nasserite Pan-Arabs doing. Clearly anyone who now picks up arms against the constitutional process is an insurgent. Secondly, it seems that people here prefer to forget the fact that the Iraqis who voted did so despite threats by the “resistance”, and that the Sunnis who are now chief among the nay-sayers largely boycotted those elections and forfeited their rights to cast ballots at the behest of that same “resistance”.
JES, apparently the “assembly freely elected by Iraqis” isn’t even going to vote on the new “constitution,” because . . . well, why bother?
John C.,
And does that please you? Are you intimating that they were not freely elected?
At any rate, the electorate will vote on the draft in a referendum (or at least those who aren’t coerced into not voting by the “resistance” will).
JES,
It’s difficult to make a whole dissertation on totalitarianism in a small blog comment. Yes, you are right, atheism wasn’t the only reason why the nazi criticized the bolshevists; I didn’t say that either. However I don’t think this mere fact allows you to say that nazis were secular : they never fighted against christianism, they used it for their needs.
Yes, you are also right that there were already germs of authoritarism in leninism. THat doesn’t however invalidate the goals of marxism : building a more equal and fair world, where each one get paid second his needs and not second its birth or strength. The socialist theory doesn’t depend on leninism and stalinism. It didn’t stop evolving after them : many thinkers and politicians have offered alternatives to the autoritarians drifts of marxism.
Meanwhile, the theory of the supremacy of the German/Aryan man was very well at the core of the Nazism, like the extermination of others so called “inferior” races, especially the Jews, but also that of the weaker men, of hindered persons, of political opponents etc. At that you can add their claim for the right to their “vital territory”.
Now take some distance and look at the neocons theories of the new empire the US is supposed to lead. How far is that rooted in real freedom and democracy ? And when the Bushies use the fight against terrorism (the pure evil they never defines) to justify any pre-emptive wars (aka invasions) aren’t they making the same kind of general supposedly irrefutable claim ? a claim even allowing them to breach the US constitution (think patriot act)? And don’t the Bushies applies that propaganda theory of G
“Are you intimating that they were not freely elected?”
I will not merely intimate that they were not freely elected, I will stated it as a fact. The “elections” in January did not meet even the minimum requirements to be called free. Therefore this assembly, this so-called “government” was not freely elected.
Furthermore, this “government” has proved to the satisfaction of the majority of Iraqi people that they are not beholded to those who elected them, freely or not, but to their American masters and their own personal ambitions. They have done exactly nothing to ease the situation of Iraqis – other than they relatives and cronies of course – while they vie for power, and contort themselves into pretzels to keep the Americans happy with them.
JES,
Your apology seems heartfelt and sincere. If so, it does appear that you were not deliberately dishonest. However, that you could make such an egregious misinterpretation of what was, I think, a perfectly clear statement, tells me that refuting me on something was far more important to you than having an honest discussion of the issues. That does not encourage me at all to try to continue any kind of conversation with you.
JES, how could anyone be pleased by the disaster currently unfolding in Iraq? Are you?
People often accuse opponents of the war of just wanting to see Bush lose. So OK, here is my confession: Yes, I want to see Bush lose. More accurately, I want to see Bush recognize the fact that he has already lost, and start acting responsibly under the circumstances.
At this point though, I don’t think what you or I might want makes any difference. We are riding on a ballistic missile, the trajectory and end point of which have already been determined.
Happy landing!
John C:
I want to see Bush recognize the fact that he has already lost
I think the most importatant that US stopU.S. War Crimes
” Iraqi Victims Expose U.S. War Crimes”
http://www.rwor.org/a/012/iraq-world-tribunal-istanbul.htm
Shirin,
Could you please expand on this statement:
“I will not merely intimate that they were not freely elected, I will stated it as a fact. The “elections” in January did not meet even the minimum requirements to be called free. Therefore this assembly, this so-called “government” was not freely elected.”
What minimum requirements didn’t they meet? What about all the international observers? Please enlighten me on this.
All WHAT international observers? Are you referring to the handful who were “observing” from their hotel rooms in Amman?
Shirin,
Okay. So let’s say that we buy the Kucinich rhetoric, and the domestic observers were worthless, while the international observers were totall hamstrung and could not manage the Iraqi observers they had trained from Amman.
Okay, assuming that free elections can be held without the presence of Jimmy Carter, exactly what was un-free about the elections. To what degree were they more or less free than the previously held elections? To what degree were they more or less free than other elections held in the region over the past several years? I’d really like to know what was lacking.
Christiane,
Let me briefly respond to some of what you wrote.
First, whether or not we can define the Nazis as purely secular is not the issue. The issue is whether secularism, in and of itself, somehow makes the Ba’ath Party and Ba’athists more palatable. (And given the fact that they at least used Islam by emblazoning “Allahu Akbar” on the national flag when it suited their needs and, further, stipulated in the Ba’athis constitution that the President must be a Sunni Muslim, I’d say their secularism is also in doubt.)
While I agree with you that the Nazis theory of Aryan supremacy was criminal (and I lost family due to the implementation of this theory), I strongly disagree with your comparison relating to the “neocons”. I think that your arguments are largely what well-meaning (or not so well-meaning) liberals and leftists say about the “neocons”, but that this has little relevance to what this fairly amorphous group actually presents in terms of an ideology. You might want to see what an actual “neocon” has to say by reading Joshua Muravchik’s excellent article “The Neoconservative Cabal” in the September 2003 issue of Commentary Magazine.
As to your last set of questions, I suggest you take a look at Christopher Hitchen’s article in the Weekly Standard. He says it much more eloquently than I ever could.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/995phqjw.asp
JES, your sarcastic ad hominem nastiness has discouraged me completely from any further attempts at discussion with you.
I wish you farewell.
Shirin,
‘ala khatrik wa ma’a salami!
While I agree with you that the Nazis theory of Aryan supremacy was criminal (and I lost family due to the implementation of this theory), I strongly disagree with your comparison relating to the “neocons”.
Funny and outrages go home JES……. The Promised Land, and continue the supremacy…
Salah,
I am home!
Bet there won’t be a peep about your ad hominem.
JES, it was not just “Kucinich rhetoric ” that pointed to the deficiencies in the January election, but many solid reports of stuffed ballot boxes (in the north), intimidation of voters, etc.
In addition, in the immediate lead-up to the election all the lists were required by the US authorities to promise that they would not, if elected, ask for any strict deadline for a US troop withdrawal– a quite unwarranted foreign interference in the process. It was that last-minute “requirement” that persuaded the veteran Adnan Pachachi, a man of known integrity, to pull his list out on the eve of the election.
Personally I recognize that almost no elections anywhere are ever totally “free and fair”; and that especially in periods of political transition one has to be satisfied with elections that are “sufficiently free and fair” (SFF). (Vide, for example, South Africa’s election of 1994.) The determination of whether this is so is, of course, overwhelmingly one for the electorate directly concerned to make, though outsiders can point to some benchmarks.
In the blog I have teetered on the brink of describing the January election in Iraq as having met the “SFF” standard. You’ll see I still run the “democracy denied in Iraq” counter, which assumes that the January election was SFF… Many commenteres here disagree, as you’ll note. It is a reasonable discussion to have, and one in which basically I cede to the Iraqi participants who are direct stakeholders in the process.
Obviously now that issue is receding into history, and we need to focus on the whether the October referendum and the December/ election meet the SFF standard. The issue is not an abstract one of mechanically meeting certain benchmarks or receiving some outside body’s certification (though that can have some sway.) At the end of the day the issue is the much larger one of the internal political legitimacy of the outcome, going forward.
Yes Helena. I hear you. I think that any fair appraisal would also take into account ALL intimidation, including that by the “resistance” intimidating people not to vote.
Let’s hope that the referendum will indeed enjoy a high degree of “freeness and fairness”.
“I think that any fair appraisal would also take into account ALL intimidation, including that by the “resistance” intimidating people not to vote.”
Why do you assume we are not taking that into consideration? And how on earth would that change anything? It is in fact one of the factors that made the “election” fail the test for fairness and freedom.
So did the Kurds’ blocking non-Kurds from voting. So did the Kurds bringing large numbers of Kurds to Kirkuk from outside and setting them up in tent cities and allowing them to vote there in order to change the demogrographics of the city in their favour. So did all the egregious interference and manipulation by the American occupiers. So did the destruction of Falluja and the scattering of its population so that there was no way most of them could vote. And so did the near complete lack of international monitors. And so did the inability of many people to get to polling places because they were forbidden to drive. And so did the fact that only those who had American support or who had their own militias were able to campaign at all while the others did not even reveal their identities, let alone their positions on the issues. And on and so on and so on.
any fair appraisal would also take into account ALL intimidation, including that by the “resistance” intimidating people not to vote.
Agreed. But the body taking responsibility for staging the election has a supervening responsibility to ensure that there IS no such intimidation, which in January they very notably failed to do, in the end resting relatively easy with the fact that turnout from Sunnis was extremely low indeed.
Let’s hope that the referendum will indeed enjoy a high degree of “freeness and fairness”.
Yes. That would definitiely involve allowing all Iraqi parties full freedom to organize their nationwide campaigns re the referendum, releasing all the political detainees, etc.
“But the body taking responsibility for staging the election has a supervening responsibility to ensure that there IS no such intimidation, which in January they very notably failed to do, in the end resting relatively easy with the fact that turnout from Sunnis was extremely low indeed.”
How would you suggest that the “body” implement this “supervening responsibility” in the face of a violent insurgency?
Are you suggesting that the “body” failed to do so intentionally to ensure a low Sunni turnout?
“…releasing all the political detainees,…”
Just out of curiosity, does that include Saddam Hussein?
Salah,
Jonathan Edelstein ; Can this piece of paper what you called “document authored by an elected Iraqi council” fix this war crime done to 20Million Iraqis, you know very well what
So did the Kurds bringing large numbers of Kurds to Kirkuk from outside and setting them up in tent cities and allowing them to vote there in order to change the demogrographics of the city in their favour.
You do know how the current demographics of Kirkuk got that way in the first place, don’t you?
Jonathan,
1. The “constitution” is a cruel joke on the Iraqi people. It is also, by all reports, not exactly an Iraqi document. Some of it was dictated by the so-called U.S. “amabassador”. Some of it was written by U.S. “embassy” personnel, and had to be translated into Arabic.
2. Of course I know how the demographics of Kirkuk got that way. That does not excuse the way the brutal and corrupt Kurdish parties and their militias have behaved there.
I also know that Kirkuk is historically a Turkmen city.
How would you suggest that the “body” implement this “supervening responsibility” in the face of a violent insurgency?
Yes, I for one am quite interested in Helena’s response to this excellent question.
How would you suggest that the “body” implement this “supervening responsibility” in the face of a violent insurgency?
Hey guys, do you mean you’ve never read anything about the many instances of decolonization in the mid-20th century when transitional elections were held as a way to help the decolonization– and held, moreover, “in the face of” a violent insurgency??
It’s simple and straightforward: you negotiate with all the major political forces involved a ceasefire of known length for the purposes of holding the election, along with the rules of assembly, party organization etc for the election…
This stuff is not rocket science.
The trick is, of course, to make sure that all the major political forces are indeed included in the negotiation and thus feel a stake in the outcome.
Ever heard of South Africa? Palestine, just last January???
Of course if, as the South African criminals-against-humanity of the apartheid regime did for many decades, or the Bush administration has done up to now, you choose instead to label all your challengers as “terrorists”, and refuse to negotiate with them on those grounds, then you are not going to get the political inclusivity that’s needed. That’s one of the wellknown pitfalls of engaging too enthusiastically in the discourse of (anti-)terrorism.
So maybe it’s time for the Bushies to take a lesson out of De Klerk’s book and start designing the kind of politically inclusive negotiating process that will, at the end of the day, be the only way out of its entanglement in Iraq? (That, or a Saigon-1975-style rout.)
Jonathan Edelstein:
Let
So did the Kurds bringing large numbers of Kurds to Kirkuk from outside and setting them up in tent cities and allowing them to vote there in order to change the demogrographics of the city in their favour.
Same thing for the Iranians, they payed $US100 for each vote paper to manipulated the voting.
There is no doubt the voting or the election was done in not fair and right environment or without minimum requirements.
I regrades of Kirkuk and Kurds I would point these points
1- After the invasion of Iraq all the stamps and papers even Saddam Red Pen and stamped was seised from his office, we all know the peoples they came with US are not angles and they had a history of frauds and other things, what ever papers or orders presented today rises a doubted that this may not right, don
Salah, if you want to interpret my words as supporting the criminals, that is your privilege. I say again that I’m not attempting to defend the invasion or the occupation, which I opposed at the time and continue to oppose now. But maybe good fruit can sometimes grow even from a poisonous tree. The draft constitution doesn’t look like a bad one to me (maybe you can elaborate on its drawbacks) and the people will get a chance to vote on it; hopefully, as Helena points out, the referendum will be free and fair enough for the people to make their will known. Why not consider the constitution on its own merits?
“The draft constitution doesn’t look like a bad one to me”
Fine, then. YOU live under it. You can rest assured that I never will.
Yes Jonathan, maybe everybody will get a chance to vote on the new constitution in a free and fair election, and the people will make their will known, whereupon all of the feuding militias will lay down their arms, and the American troops, Iranian agents, Saudi extremists and assorted mercenaries, hustlers and carpetbaggers will all go home, and the Iraqi people will live happily ever after.
But probably not.
Meanwhile, the quagmire continues. Tom Lasseter reports that:
“In Al-Fallujah, a city that Marines and soldiers retook from insurgents last November in the heaviest urban combat since Vietnam, fighters have begun to return and renew their intimidation campaign.`As we all know, we have mujahedeen operating in small squads throughout the city,’ Marine Sgt. Manuel Franquez said before leading a patrol in Al-Fallujah last week.”
Anyone want to volunteer to be an election observer in Fallujah?
Shirin: Leaving aside the manner of the constitution’s origin, what parts of it do you find objectionable? I’m asking this question honestly, because there has been very little discussion of the actual text of the constitution on this thread, and I’m curious about what makes it so objectionable that it shouldn’t even be put to a vote. As constitutions go – and I’m familiar with quite a few of them – this one doesn’t seem too bad with respect to ownership of national resources, human rights, rights of minorities, and the mechanisms of government. I can see some problems with respect to religion and state, but the regions’ modification power seems enough to ensure secular rule for those who want it.
You’ve spoken in favor of the 1990 constitution in the past – do you really prefer a constititution providing for a “Revolutionary Command Council [as] the supreme institution in the State” to the commission’s draft? (If I were looking for past models, I’d go for a modified version of the 1925 constitution or maybe the 1958 one, but that’s another discussion.)
At any rate, I’m open to changing my mind here. What in the draft constitution – i.e., the text of the document itself – is bad for Iraq?
John C: Of course I don’t believe that everyone will live happily ever after if the constitution passes, or that the violence will end. There has to be a starting point somewhere, though, and given current conditions (or any foreseeably likely conditions), what are the odds that any other constitution-drafting process or final document would be better or less contentious than this one?
Helena seems to think that the vote can be made “SFF.” She also thinks, and I agree, that the odds of that would be better if the US forces left the country. But even if the US forces did leave and the whole process started over, what would be the chances of settling on a constitution that would convince everyone to lay down their arms? I doubt that any possible constitution wouldn’t excite opposition, so why not put this one to a vote and worry about starting over if it fails?
BTW, John C, I’ll ask you the same question as I asked Shirin: what are your impressions of the actual text of the draft constitution, and is there anything so objectionable that you’d reject a reasonably credible referendum result in its favor?
Jonathan, I have no opinion on the merits of the proposed Iraqi constitution. It is not a subject of academic interest to me, and I can think of no other reason to study it. It would make no difference if it was the greatest constitution ever written. The only important question is whether it is a document that reflects a true political consensus – or at least the basis of a truce – among the warring factions in Iraq. I think we have now seen that it is not.
You said: “But even if the US forces did leave and the whole process started over, what would be the chances of settling on a constitution that would convince everyone to lay down their arms?”
I think you are confusing cause and effect. No document is going to cause the warring factions to lay down their arms. Either one faction will emerge victorious on the battlefield, and impose its will on the others, or the factions will get tired of fighting, and agree on some sort of compromise which will become the “constitution.” Right now, the main problem is the continuing occupation of the country by foreign troops, as you seem to agree. As long as that condition continues, there is no hope for any kind of resolution.
Quite honestly (and cynically), I had hoped that Khalilzad would be able to pull off some sort of sham agreement among the hand-picked “representatives” on the constitution-drafting committee, and that some sort of controlled “election” would then occur, which would enable Bush to claim victory and pull our troops out of Iraq before all hell broke loose. This may seem uncaring, but I think it would have been better than what we are likely to witness in the months to come.
Jonathan, I know you are a man of good will.
Peace.
Interesting response from Helena on how the “supervening responsibility” should have been implemented. Just a couple of points however.
First, this is not an issue of decolonization. It is a military occupation that followed a war. The situation is entirely different, particularly when portions of the insurgency who are openly committing acts of terror – there I said it – to prevent such democratic activities as elections are clearly former member of the regime that war was fought to remove.
Second, last time I checked, Abu Musab az-Zarqawi and a good many other Muslim people involved in that insurgency do not happen to be Iraqis. I don’t believe that they have a right to be considered a local “political force”, as Helena calls it, or that they should be negotiated with. (You will excuse me for not being an advocate for reinstating the Muslim Empire and revival of the Caliphate.)
I think that if one were looking for a parallel, then post World War II Germany or Japan might be more apt. BTW, the elections were for an interim government, and the draft constitution will be subject to referendum.
It still seems to me that Helena’s formula of “supervening responsibility” is simply a damned if they do, damned if they don’t Catch 22.
US Offered USD 75 Million to Iraqi Sunnis for Signature under Constitution
http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?catid=138&newsid=71234&ch=0&datte=2005-08-30
Iraq Constitution Said Vague on Some Points
http://iraq.headliner.org/headliner.php?c=us&id=283112&abbr=ap
Zalmay Khalilzad and the Bush Agenda
http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/01.14A.Zalmay.Oil.htm
Yup, JES, some of the Iraqi oppositionists do commit outrageous acts of terror (though I suspect that the majority of such acts are committed by non-Iraqis); but the majority of Iraqis opposed to the present/emerging political order do not do so.
The trick (as in SA or elsewhere) is to engage enough of the (indigenous) opposition in respectful and meaningful negotiations that they will end their support for the men of violence and even repudiate those people from their midst.
Some of those who end up heading the negotiating party of the opposition may well be people previously intimately connected with the violence– as Mandela had been. But let’s face it unacceptable violence has been used on both sides of the dividing line in Iraq (as in SA). So the issue is not to engage inideological grandtsnading and accusations re past violence but to try to build a sustainable and equality-based modus vivendi going forward.
Frankly, in Iraq it doesn’t look as though they’re close to this yet. But I’m about to write a main post about this. See you there.
Interesting info