Posted on 08/24/2005 8:21:20 PM PDT by neverdem
President Bush doesn't lack for critics when it comes to his Iraq policies, but the smartest and most devastating of these is Peter W. Galbraith, a former United States ambassador to Croatia.
Yesterday, after reading a morning's worth of gloomy press accounts about the proposed Iraqi constitution, I thought it might be interesting to hear what Galbraith himself had to say. I finally tracked him down in Baghdad (at God knows what hour there) and found that far from lambasting Bush, Galbraith was more complimentary about what the administration has just achieved than anybody else I spoke to all day.
"The Bush administration finally did something right in brokering this constitution," Galbraith exclaimed, then added: "This is the only possible deal that can bring stability. ... I do believe it might save the country."
Galbraith's argument is that the constitution reflects the reality of the nation it is meant to serve. There is, he says, no meaningful Iraqi identity. In the north, you've got a pro-Western Kurdish population. In the south, you've got a Shiite majority that wants a "pale version of an Iranian state." And in the center you've got a Sunni population that is nervous about being trapped in a system in which it would be overrun.
In the last election each group expressed its authentic identity, the Kurds by voting for autonomy-minded leaders, the Shiites for clerical parties and the Sunnis by not voting.
This constitution gives each group what it wants. It will create a very loose federation in which only things like fiscal and foreign policy are controlled in the center (even tax policy is decentralized). Oil revenues are supposed to be distributed on a per capita basis, and no group will feel inordinately oppressed by the others.
The Kurds and Shiites understand what a...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
David Brooks is back from vacation, YEAH!.
This is a very interesting article and I pray it is correct.
oh gawd not Mr 'break-it-up' Galbraith again.... might as well hire a butcher as a brain surgeon than take his advice.
yes, you'll create on Iranian puppet state, one jihadist enemy of US, and kurdistan. 1 out of 3 aint bad.
Keep Iraq together.
As do I.
But, given the situation of the Kurds, hasn't the recognized objective from the outset been a federated state?
And hasn't it been logical from the outset that there would be an Islamic character to the document? Iraq is just as Islamic as we were Christian -- and let there be no mistake about it, our Constitution is an importantly Christian document.
So long as there is a recognition of equal rights for all and democratic voting principles, we should be well pleased.
As I understand it, the Iraqi consitution is not unlike the Afghan consitution in most respects. The latter was hailed as a giant leap forward. Why shouldn't the Iraqi constitution be judged similarly?
Any country that insists on constructing it's constitution to include Islamic Law as it's core will never be a completely peaceful country.
BUMP
Did you read the whole article? Galbraith is optimistic.
"Keep Iraq together."
Don't know how much longer I am going to stay up tis late on east coast, but the three part solution is manor. It will lead to a real catastrophy. Iraq must have a strong centralize govenrment that draws on all Iraq for it's military and internal security. Yes that is mentioned somewhat. But if they have there almost autononouse states, how are they going to keep full border control, each of the three will always be gogging for more power. The history of the mid east is nothing but power plays, tribal instincts. Only when a strongman has come to power to take control of the whole state does what we consider a nation losely appear. The emphasise must continue on ONE IRAQ for all.
That is the only way they are going to survive. And obviously that has been Blairs and Bushes intentions from day one. It must be shown as a model where a democratically controlled government with secular administrative,judicial, and military all work under one roof. Or it is going to be a failure. Yea. Galbraith. The bastard knows the real deal.
He will wait to watch as the south does eventually fall into more Iranian influence. That's what he really wants. I feel it in my bones. And lets face it the Kurds continue to lean backwards through it all, if you let them segregate themselves then it is back again to day one.
Galbraith knows damn well that is what allowed Saddam to come to power. As others have harped at FR in the past year, Iraq needs a brutal bastard to keep all elements under one roof. OK. I don't agree for another dictator. As GWB wants, we want to replace Saddam with a willing unilaterally acceptable democratic goverment that rules in behalf of all Iraqis. That is my two cents.
In order to secure some agreements, there had to be autonomy, ala our Articles of Confederation era. I keep thinking of the motto "join or die." Forces in play will militate for the stronger central government that is sorely needed, just as they did for the US.
A federated, 3 state solution with a central gubmint would IMHO be a stroke of genius.
The Sunni's may have to have it rammed down their throats, but they will either accept it in peace or die fighting it.
Galbraith says he is frustrated with all the American critics who argue that the constitution divides the country. The country is already divided, he says, and drawing up a constitution that would artificially bind three divergent societies together would create only friction, violence and civil war. "It's not a problem if a country breaks up, only if it breaks up violently," Galbraith says. "Iraq wasn't created by God. It was created by Winston Churchill."
Very interesting observations that I very much hope are accurate., ping!
"What's important, Gerecht has emphasized, is the democratic process: setting up a system in which the different groups, secular and clerical, will have to bargain with one another, campaign and deal with the real-world consequences of their ideas. This is what's going to moderate them and lead to progress. This constitution does that. Shutting them out would lead to war.
The constitution also exposes the canard that America is some imperial power trying to impose its values on the world. There are many parts of this constitution any American would love. There are other parts that are strange to us.
But when you get Galbraith and Gerecht in the same mood, you know something important has happened. The U.S. has orchestrated a document that is organically Iraqi."
Iraq's Constitution contains much of the same language that Afghanistan's Constitution contains. I have posted some National Review comments about this matter that should help quell some critics.
That Iraq, that is 80% Muslim, would look to provide language about their religion is not surprising to anyone except those on the extreme left.
Thanks for the ping
"There has never been one Iraq. Iraq is a concoction of Winston Churchill. A federated, 3 state solution with a central gubmint would IMHO be a stroke of genius.
The Sunni's may have to have it rammed down their throats, but they will either accept it in peace or die fighting it."
I respect your opinion. One can read the article and perhaps think the solution is a three federal state system with a lose /weak centralized government. What the English decided to do way back when has to fit into the situation of the time, which many could rightfully say are not that much different then current, e.g. same ethnic and religious sects basically in a geographic mosaic being the same.
But I just feel that even if the tri-federal districts where set up, that it would weaken Iraq's future role in the ME as being a model of a democratic Republic. Think back at the long agony involved in turning the United States into a republic under one central goverment. Perhaps I am very ignorant but see much the same thing in current Iraq.
If they partition the country into three parts, one can only imagine how well they would pledge allegience to the Republic of Iraq. Imagine if what is now the United States where to have been allowed to remain individual states dermarked by political/social/religious/trade geographics.
The US never would have become a real Republic. It would be a group of loosely aligned countries (each state doing it's own thing, and constantly telling it's neighbors go stick it we don't do things like you do so get lost). That is exactly IMHO what we will see in Iraq. It took a great civil war between the states in the US to finally bring the country under one roof. Regardless of the reasons we experienced that war, is not the issue, the fact that those differences divided the country is self evident. After the reconstruction process, blah blah blah......the country took a new form, the current one. So my point is why have the Iraqis go through a most probably altimate similiar fate, and in so doing so, propogate the polar opposite goal we had in mind. What is proposed will only lead to a ongoing in-stability. What happens for instance if two years down the pike the Shi'ite Southern alliance where to say, we no longer want to be a part of Iraq. Similiarly the northern region expressing the same. With a weak central government, who is going to keep them from splitting apart? With the most obviouse end result leading in yet more in-stablility in the ME.
Let me throw this out for thought. Just how many foreign companies (so vital to their future), are going to want to take the chance to set up shop in one of the supposed sub Iraqs for a better term. Would say an American petroleum company want to chance investing in refineries in Iraq if their operation could only prove to be profit making if they established refineries in both the north and the south. Would they take the CHANCE of investing, knowing full well something could happen that would sever the two sub-Iraqs due to religous unrest etc.. Take another perhaps over simplied example. Will the northern sub-Iraq fully allow an even dispersal of profits from selling oil flow into say the central govenrment whereby it can be used to build new industrial plants in the province of Bibil. Due to the oil barren central part of Iraq, where the area is more agricultural in nature, will they be able to get an equal share of moneies from the north and the south to be on an even par in regards to the standard of living goes etc..
Just how effective will the commercial districts in the capital fair, if they now are dependend on the good graces of the north and south. Will the Central Bank of Iraq and it's Stock Exchange to caput? I could go on and on with example I believe will be directly effected by a "divided Iraq". That is why I wrote as I did. Please do not feel obligated to respond this late in the threads, I just wanted to better clarify my position.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
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.