Like Inside Baseball
It was a surprise to see the President show up in Iraq to share thanksgiving with the troops Yahoo! News - Bush Surprises U.S. Troops With Iraq Trip. It was a nice gesture and one of the few genuinely class moves by this administration. This comes on the heels of two articles in the Washington Post this week: washingtonpost.com: How Cleric Trumped U.S. Plan for Iraq, washingtonpost.com: Top Cleric Faults U.S. Blueprint For Iraq, and a similar piece in the Times
Iraqi's May Be Moving Toward a Compromise on Government. These articles press beyond the surface of meetings and statements, beyond announcements of troop movements Army Is Planning for 100,000 G.I.'s in Iraq Till 2006, Yahoo! News - Pentagon Sending More Marines to Iraq, through the daily trauma of the insurgency Attacks on G.I.[base ']s in Mosul Rise as Good Will Fades, to blow away the swirling dust and get to the actualities of the balance of the Iraq situation. There is a certain Inside Baseball feel to these articles, which leaves me feeling, as it does with baseball, specially informed, but reliant on a particular, potentially artificial, narrative.
Starting with a piece a week ago on the decision to declare the iraqi army nonextant", the Post seems to be embarking on a series to examine the turning points and decisions of the 'post war' phase of the war. Consensus opinion is coming to view this dismissal as an error despite Secretary Rumsfeld's view that the iraqi army voluntarily demobilized, this ignores that they did so out of absolute self preservation, and precludes discussion on whether it was not in our interest to put out the word that we required them only to stand down and return to their barracks - which is what we were telling them as the war began. The articles from this week look at the progress or lack of it from the Iraqi congress. This group selected by the American occupation needed to effect three things, generate a certain respect from the iraqi people, through their behavior and activities. This would gain them a degree of legitimacy to the authority lent them only by American arms. Then to use this legitimacy to draw up a constitution, organize an election, and accept sovereignty.
The crux of the situation is the order these things happen. The administrations interest was to have the council either directly or by subcommittee write a full constitution under American aegis. Apparently in response to rumors that Bremer desired that American and British experts undertake this as a technical task. The Shiite cleric Ayatollah Sistani issued a fatwa insisting that Iraqi's write the constitution and that the drafters or assembly that assigns them come from a prior national election.
Between the line of this is a contest over the nature of the new nation - will it be secular or Islamist? The American authority is undoubtedly aware of polls that indicate the Iraqi people favor either an Islamist monarchy or Islamist republic. Boston.com / News / World / Poll: Most Iraqis accept US troops (Andrew Hammond, Reuters. "Poll: Most Iraqis accept US troops." Boston Globe, 21 Nov 2003. see also: Brookings Inst. Iraq Index).
Despite intense prodding the Iraqi congress is willing to do nothing in the face of this edict. In October the U.S.'s favored alternate Shiite authority Ayatollah Hakim was assassinated, since then Bremer has been forced to offer various forms of possible elections schemes to Sistani while trying to avoid a full formal election. This would likely favor the current most organized elements of Iraqi society, The former (baathist) elite, and Islamist theocrats. The administration favors a light managed electoral scheme of caucuses to elect a constitutional assembly. Further the U.S. desires, at the least, the current congress hammer out a document being referred to as the Basic Law. This document seems intended to be an amalgam of essential elements seen in our Declaration of Independence , Articles of Confederation, and Bill of Rights. It would probably contain a vision statement for the new state, a statement of sovereignty, and a guarantee of suffrage. To me this seems sensible and practical given the situation at hand. Especially if a powerful head-of-state authority is not created until after a formal constitution with more rigorous and developed delineations of power, balance, and checks is developed.
Among all groups (those mentioned in these articles and those not) is occurring a game theory jockying over which scheme, order of events, and time frame favors their interest. In this their guess is a good as mine.
11:54:36 PM  ;;
|
|
