Referendum prospects & maneuvers

I have a column on Iraq in the Christian Science Monitor today. The title is In Iraq, a rush toward democracy could trigger civil war.
Well, I didn’t write that headline… I would have phrased it a little differently, since what they’re rushing toward doesn’t exactly look like “democracy” to me… More like a series of murky deals concluded behind closed doors.
As so often, though, it was really tough to write something on Monday-Tuesday for a Thursday paper, about a topic that was such a fast-moving target. The major intervening development has been the “breakthrough” that Zal Khalilzad achieved yesterday by winning the support of some (but by no means all) of the country’s Arab Sunni political leaders for yet more last-minute changes in the “constitution” document to be voted on Thursday.
The text of the Constitution now looks like a ragged old patchwork, it’s had so many post-“deadline” changes sewn into it… And of course, we now learn that a major provision in it is a textrual promise there that it can– indeed will– be changed very rapidly after the referendum.
I think the effect of all these last-minute shenanigans may well be to sow confusion among the Sunni voters, who had previously been reported to be lining up pretty solidly behind those who urged them to (a) take part in Saturday’s referendum, and (b) do so by voting “No.”
In addition that position, two others are now being advocated in the Sunni community: To take part and vote “Yes” to the newly fiddled-with version; or to stay away from the polls altogether.
Those urging abstention are the Islamist militants. Those urging a “Yes” vote are apparently the Iraqi Islamic Party– hard to find out quickly who else. Those urging a “No” vote are, according to the NYT article linked to above:

the powerful Association of Muslim Scholars, which represents hundreds of Sunni clerics from across the country. At least two other Sunni leaders, Adnan al-Dulaimi of the Conference of the Iraqi People and Kamal Hamdoon, a Sunni member of the constitution drafting committee, said Wednesday that they would also continue to oppose it.

It strikes me that what has been achieved with the latest round of (quite extra-procedural) textual finessing of the document is not (gasp!) a more perfect Constitution for Iraq, and most certainly not a document that will help Iraqis to escape from the cluitches of the present violence and insecurity. What has been achieved is to sow dissension in Sunni Arab ranks, with the effect of weakening that community’s political cohesion– and also, with the possible consequence that the “No-voting bloc” fails to get the required 2/3 majority required to block the document.
(Though how can anyone be assured that we will ever know what the “true” vote in the majority-Sunni provinces ends up as being?)
I end my CSM column warning of the danger of a full-blown civil war that could spread further throughout the region…

What can the US do to avert such a disaster? Some people say the US should stay in Iraq to prevent the outbreak of a civil war. But this misreads the record of the 30-month period the US has already spent as the occupying power there. During those 30 months, ethnic and sectarian tensions have worsened considerably. There is no reason to expect that another 12 or 30 months of US presence would be any different.
If the US stays, the intra-Iraqi civil strife is very likely indeed to continue, or even escalate. But if the US announces a speedy departure, and then leaves in good order – who knows? The Iraqis may fall into civil war afterward, or they may not. But at least the US troops will not be caught in the middle, and the US will not be as morally responsible for the strife. Also, if the US troops are clearly on their way out, then no Iraqi community will find it as easy to overreach politically as the Kurds and Shiites have done recently (while protected by the imperfect shield of the US troop presence). And all sincere Iraqis will realize – as South Africans did some dozen years ago – that if they want to save their country they will need to find a way to deal with each other.
Will that happen? It still might. Who would have thought back in 1990 that black and white South Africans could find a way to work together? And if Iraqis should lack confidence in negotiating their future among themselves and feel they still need a reassuring outside presence – well, there are many candidates for the job more qualified than the US military.
Despite many good intentions, US policies have thus far brought Iraq to the brink of internal breakdown. This week’s referendum won’t stop that process. Within the next six to eight months, the best thing that could persuade Iraqis to hold their country together is a speedy and total exit of US troops.

The prospects all seem to me fairly depressing. But at least, within the US, the ground-swell of opinion that is ready to criticize Bush on his handling of the war, and to seriously consider a pullout, is finally starting to build.