Skip to comments.Iraq parliament finds a quorum hard to come by [Should we fire them?]
Posted on 04/29/2007 1:17:32 PM PDT by Sleeping Beauty
Iraq's Parliament has been at a standstill. Nearly every session has been adjourned because as few as 65 [of the 275] members made it to work... As a result,vital legislation involving the budget and amendments to the Constitution remain trapped in a legislative process that processes nearly nothing. American officials long hoped that the Parliament could help foster dialogue between Iraq's increasingly fractured ethnic and religious groups, but that has not happened.
...The country's dominant issue, security, is controlled almost exclusively by the American military and the office of the prime minister.... Though the Constitution grants Iraq's only elected body wide powers to pass laws, sectarian divisions and the need for a twothirds majority in some cases have often led to deadlock. Sunni and Shiite power brokers have blocked efforts to scrutinize violence connected to their own sects.
...Party leaders in Baghdad said they had urged members to attend but emphasized that Parliament had become a hardship post. Representatives who travel from afar stay at the Rashid Hotel in the Green Zone, two checkpoints and several pat-downs from the 1970s-era convention center. It is not luxurious. It is barely safe. The food is mediocre.
...Mr. Allawi, for example, has been rallying support among exiles who have fled Iraq's violence.... But he said the dangers involved with being a public figure in Iraq had made it much more difficult to participate in government. He has 40 guards to protect him when he comes to Iraq, he said, and the salary from Parliament pays for only 20.... He also acknowledged that more money should be set aside for members' security, but only if members show up to pass a budget. For the proposals to be put in place, a majority of members in Parliament have to be present to pass them.
(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...
One of the reasons that Iraq cannot meet its benchmarks is that the Iraqi Parliament does not have a Quorum to pass legislation. Nearly one-quarter of the members live outside of Iraq for safety sake. Many live in hiding. Few show up to legislative sessions because they believe it is too dangerous or not in their interest to do so.
I think it is clear that we cannot rely on Iraq to govern itself. So -- what should we do?
Should we dismiss the Iraqi government, recognize that Iraq now belongs to us, and build a large base of operations there -- in the strategic center of the Middle East?
Should we just leave, since they don't want to even show up to govern themselves?
Or, do you have a better idea?
We should give up on the fantasy that we can turn Iraq into Western European style parliamentary democracy. We need a pro-West strongman in charge (like the Shah or Musharaf in Pakistan) to keep the crazies under control and the oil flowing.
Funny thing thought. Despite being lied to and lied to and lied to Dincons have this almost religious faith in anything so long as the outfit propagandizing it claims it to be “news”.
Read some of the other tripe this guy has pumped out. I would be highly doubtful about anything this guy claims until it was corroborated by at least two independent sources that do NOT site him as the source.
This is the kind of crap news that contributed to the overthrow of Democratic government in Russia in 1917.
Yeah that worked SO well in Iran with the Shah.
Why do you Dincon Know Nothings not simply waddle off to the tar pit while better men clean up the mess you and your idiot dogmas created.
I had read of this problem many months ago. Too many members of parliment have fled the country to get a qurum so nothing gets done. Many of those who have remained are actually a part of the problem in the streets and neighborhoods (al Sadr is a member of parliment).
One suggestion has been the seating of an “enlightened despot” to rule over the transition from undemocratic to fully democratic with a Saddam-like figure in charge of a martial law situation in the interim. Whatever the eventual answer, it is obvious that the staus quo is unacceptable and the current gov’t cannot be depended upon.
My fear is not an overthrow, but that someone like al-Sadr will win in a free and open election!
Al Sadr is not unchallenged in the Shia community. But there is almost certainly going to be an Islamist government in power before too long. I just think that he will probably not be the top dog.
If the army can stand up, a military government is probably a better bet.
Hi Johnnie -- This was published in Forbes, yesterday.
Also it was discussed this morning on some of the Sunday news shows today -- in regard to meeting benchmarks as a condition of war funding. There is a concern that Iraq cannot meet these benchmarks if they cannot get a quorum to vote on important issues.
Anyway, thanks for the heads up. I'm tryng to learn how facts can be perceived as fiction if they are presented by the wrong people. I don't yet know who all the wrong people are.
What do you mean “fire them”? Did we hire them?
“Iraq’s Parliament has been at a standstill. Nearly every session has been adjourned because as few as 65 [of the 275] members made it to work”
Ha,ha, well they’re trying to get to work. It’s just those damn roadside bombs that keep slowing them down from getting to work on time that’s all !!!
And not everyone supporting such a govt will be Islamic crazies... many will support it out of the belief that it is the only thing that will restore some law and order.
I have read that Sistiani has no interest in an Iranian style theocracy - but he is in his 70's and in poor health.
Yes, it did - until Peanut Boy Jimmy came along.
There is a Shia faction in opposition to Sadr, whose name I cannot recall right now. It is backing the Maliki government right nbow. Sadr’s handicap is his claim to authority based on his father’s name,and aparently he has not impressed people by his demonstrated abilities.
We don’t get to fire anyone. It is not our country and never was!
Most parliamentary forms of government hold elections at some interval. The Iraqi people then can remove their absent officials and replace them with more dedicated public servants. In the interim, we might convene the Parliament in a more appropriate, safe, or luxurious location if those measures would compel the attendance of chronically absent members.
PS: In some ways, a chronically absent legislature might serve the Iraqi people best. Ours occupies its sessions with corrupt bargaining and schemes to defraud our people and undermine our national security. Just think of all the horrid legislation that legislatures do not legislate when legislators flee the legislature to avoid legislation.
The U. S. should occupy and secure the oilfields and operate them under a U.S. protectorate and get out.
Whatever happened to the former U. S. doctrine of self-determination?
Maybe instead of just mindlessly screaming your idiot level ignorance on Iraq louder you might finally shut up, sit down and READ the data provided ONE time. Start with these
One of the really infuriating things in modern politics is the level of disinformation, misinformation, demagoguery and out right lying going on about the mission in Iraq. Democrats have spent the last 3+ years lying about Iraq out of a political calculation. The assumption is that the natural isolationist mindset of the average American voter, linked to the inherent Anti Americanism (what is misnamed the “Anti War movement”) of the more feverish Democrat activists (especially those running the US’s National “News” media) would restore them to national political dominance. The truth is the Democrat Party Leadership has simply lacked the courage to speak truth to whiners. The truth is that even if Al Gore won the 2000 election and 09-11 still happened we would be doing the EXACT same things in Iraq we are doing now.
Based on the political situation in the region left over from the 1991 Gulf War plus the domestic political consensus built up in BOTH parties since 1991 as well as fundamental military strategic laws, there was NO viable strategic choice for the US but to take out Iraq after finishing the initial operations in Afghanistan.
To start with Saddam’s Iraq was our most immediate threat. We could NOT commit significant military forces to another battle with Saddam hovering undefeated on our flank nor could we leave significant forces watching Saddam. The political containment of Iraq was breaking down. That what Oil for Food was all about. Oil for Food was an attempt by Iraq to break out of it’s diplomatic isolation and slip the shackles the UN Sanctions put on it’s military. There there was the US Strategic position to consider.
The War on Islamic Fascism is different sort of war. in facing this Asymmetrical threat, we have a hidden foe, spread out across a geographically diverse area, with covert sources of supply. Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone.
Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The “Holy” soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is mostly neutral in terms of guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).
Did any of the critics of liberating Iraq ever look at a map? Iraq, for which we had the political, legal and moral justifications to attack, is the strategic high ground of the Middle East. A Geographic barrier that severs ground communication between Iran and Syria apart as well as providing another front of attack in either state or into Saudi Arabia if needed.
There were other reasons to do Iraq but here is the strategic military reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.
Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. One has to wonder if the American people have either the emotional maturity, nor the intellect” to understand. It’s so much easier to spew made for TV slogans like “No Blood for Oil” or “We support the Troops, bring them home” or dumbest of all “We are creating terrorists” then to actually THINK.
Westerners in general, and the US citizens in particular seem to have trouble grasping the fundamental fact of this foe. These Islamic Fascists have NO desire to co-exist with them. The extremists see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. There is simply no way to coexist with people who completely believe their “god” will reward them for killing us.
So we can covert to Islam, die or kill them. Iraq is about killing enough of them to make the rest of the Jihadists realize we are serious. They same way killing enough Germans, Italians and Japanese eliminated the ideologies of Nazism, Fascism and Bushido.
Americans need to understand how Bin Laden and his ilk view us. In the Arab world the USA is considered a big wimp. We have run away so many times. Lebanon, the Kurds, the Iraqis in 1991, the Iranians, Somalia, Clinton all thru the 1990s etc etc etc. The Jihadists think we will run again. In fact they are counting on it. That way they can run around screaming “We beat the American just like the Russians, come join us in Jihad” and recruit the next round of “holy warriors”. Iraq is also a show place where we show the Muslim world that there are a lines they cannot cross. On 9-11-01 they crossed that line and we can, and will, destroy them for it -
If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.