I haven’t been smoking crack or drinking, and I haven’t fallen and hit my head, but for some reason or another I have now read this story three times and I can’t figure what the hell to make of it:
National Assembly today called off a meeting that was scheduled to decide on the draft constitution, the Speaker’s office said, and no new date for the meeting was immediately announced.
A vote on the document was originally deferred Monday by the Speaker, Hajim al-Hassani, who said three days of talks would be held to try to win over Sunni Arab negotiators.
It appears, however, that no agreement has been reached so far with the Sunnis on the question of federalism, which would essentially set up powerful local regions instead of a strong central government.
The question facing the Iraqi leaders and the Americans who are advising them is whether to move on without the Sunnis and just vote to approve the charter, on which the Kurds and Shiites have already agreed. But the danger is that such a move could lead to a Sunni walkout, and a possible increase in the Sunni-led insurgency, so it appears that they have decided to take more time to try to get the Sunnis on board.
An optimistic tone was struck by President Jalal Talabani, however, soon after the delay was announced.
“Efforts are still continuing to reach consensus in the coming hours,” he said at a joint news conference with a Sunni leader, and he stressed that the Sunnis should get a bigger role in drafting the constitution.
The announcement that Parliament would miss the second extended deadline places the current government on uncertain legal authority. Under the rules that were agreed to last year the National Assembly is obliged to dissolve itself and hold new elections if it is unable to reach agreement on the interim constitution.
So they don’t have an agreement, they aren’t meeting, yet they are just pretending everything is fine and they don’t need to dissolve? Am I missing something?
Apparently not.
Then there is this:
Fighters believed to be members of Saddam Hussein’s former regime killed 13 Iraqi police, 27 civilians and an American security-force member in a concerted attack in a west Baghdad neighborhood, first luring police within range by slaughtering five members of an Iraqi household, Iraqi and U.S. officials said Thursday.
The Baghdad attack, in which witnesses said up to 40 masked insurgents armed with grenade-launchers and AK-47 assault rifles openly walked the streets, came late Wednesday, as political violence and sectarian tensions flared across Iraq on the eve of a decision on Iraq’s new constitution.
Two days of sudden clashes between government-allied Shiite fighters and a rival Shiite militia subsided in the south of Iraq by midday Thursday, after appeals for calm by Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari and militant Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr.
norbizness
http://billmon.org/archives/002112.html
Look, I wouldn’t even try to begin to think to explain how a Constitution gets passed with no votes or the parliament even meeting.
BinkyBoy
Its just more proof that freedom is on the march. The people are thirsting for democracy and this just shows how resolute they are to accomplishing their goal of a free democratic New Persia.
Joe Albanese
I’m with you on this one John, I can’t figure out what the hell is going on. Inscrutable is a word that comes to mind.
Frank
There is no point voting on a constitution that you know will not pass. Civil war has officialy begun in Iraq. Why bother with papers?
KC
Honestly, the way things are going over there, I just can’t wait for the administration to declare victory in mid-2006 and start pulling troops out.
Jimmy Jazz
Don’t panic. Operation Cut and Run is still on schedule!
Cue laugh track.
Demdude
There is no point voting on a constitution that you know will not pass. Civil war has officialy begun in Iraq. Why bother with papers?
And whose side are we going to support in the upcoming carnage?
BinkyBoy
Whichever side earns Halliburton the most $’s, I’d guess.
Jimmy Jazz
The ruthless, Iranian-trained-and-backed Shi’ite militias. They’re the “moderates”.
Jimmy Jazz
Can somebody explain to me again how replacing a toothless secular dictator with an unstable fundamentalist theocratic Iranian client state is helping to roll back the deadly tide of Islamofascism? Speak slowly, please.
jg
Also please explain how it makes us safer over here.
BinkyBoy
you certainly don’t ask for much, do you?
capelza
The ruthless, Iranian-trained-and-backed Shi’ite militias. They’re the “moderates”.
Wouldn’t it be the saddest irony of all if we wound up backing the formerly Baathist Sunnis?
capelza
Well heck, my clever blockquoting didn’t work. :(
“The ruthless, Iranian-trained-and-backed Shi’ite militias. They’re the “moderates”.” should be quoted as well.
Theseus
It’s not exactly how I read it. But I’d call that political haggling, Middle Eastern style. Being of Greek descent myself, I kinda understand their mentality a bit. Meeting strict deadlines is certainly not our forte and we tend to be masters at self-delusion when convenient for the sake of maintaining one’s honour, pride or saving face.
The key is to get the Sunnis aboard, but the Shiites and the Kurds obviously can only negotiate so much. The Sunnis have to decide whether they want to risk political and military ruin in their quest for their most irredentist, maximalist demands. Or if they are able to accept the realities of the new Iraq, in which they only make up roughly 80& of the population.
As for the second article, I’d be interested to know how many “insurgents” were killed as well, and if they are included in the civilian tally. And I’m interested in what context the article deems it appropriate to use the word “flared”. How many attacks across Iraq merit the word “flared”? Just curious. And did they manage to overcome the Iraqi police or were the police mostly able to hold their ground?
Theseus
Sorry I meant to say where they only make up 20% of the Iraqi population.
James Emerson
The Sunnis are theologically similar to the Wahabists of Saudi Arabia, whereas the Shias have historically been at odds with them. In any event, the southern nine Shia provinces of Iraq would probably be more comfortable allied with the Iranians than with the Saudis, and that scares the Hell out of the Saudis who have their own fundamentalist Shia movenment to contend with as well as their homegrown Wahabist Jihadists (try saying those two words ten times fast). So it it very likely that we would intervene in a civil war on the side of the Sunnis for the sake of our Saudi friends all the while the Iraqi Sunni jihadists are taking potshots at our guys…Ironic indeed.
BTW—Apparently Cheney has ordered plans drawn up to attack Iran with a combination of conventional and tactical nuclear weapons in the case where the American homeland gets attacked again, regardless of whether the Iranians are involved. So I think I know whose side we’re on.
Veeshir
I would just like to note the interesting theme in the story about the attack. It starts off with the killing of the family. No details on the family but talk of AK weilding madmen walking the streets with impunity. Then, they go off into talking about the constitution and talk about “strife” in that context.
To tie it in they say this,Kubba linked both the Sunni Arab insurgent attack in Baghad and the Shiite-on-Shiite violence in the south to the constitution, saying disputes over the charter had aggravated tensions in the south. but the quote they mention doesn’t seem to track, The Baghdad attack, Kubba said, was a “stage-managed operation” meant to overshadow progress on the constitution. “They wanted the writing on the wall, that they are still there.”
Then, they finish up with talking about the attack again. This time, no AK weilding madmen, but a series of car bombs.
Kubba said they were attacking to show they were important, Wash Post changes that to violence over the form of the constitution.
Also, why mention the constitution anyway? It’s a story about an attack.
Can’t the Washington Post do a positive article on Iraq?
Gary Farber
“I can’t figure what the hell to make of it….”
Neither could NBC’s man in Baghdad. (I thought this made an amusing counterpoint to you, except for the lack of the “counter” part.)
Northman
One: Just becasue they’re Sunni does not make them Wahabists, just like being a Protestant does not make one a Evagelical. The Baathists are secular and closer to communists then religious fundementalists.
Two: If they were Wahabists. why would the Saudi royals want you to help the same people who want to overthrow them?
Sometimes I’m not sure if the Bush administartion knows whose side their on, but theoretically the US is on the side of the democratically elected government, which happens to be the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Yipee!
If the above story about rival Shiite factions fighting and other stories regarding Baathist fighting Zarqawi’s groups are any indication, any civil war that develops will have many more than three sides.
Regarding the Constitution, they’ve been in legal limbo since they missed the first deadline. I have no clue how they are justifying this, but if its indicative of how they’ll follow future laws, what the Constitution says probably won’t matter too much anyway.
TallDave
Now that Iraqi politics is totally incomprehensible, I guess it’s official: they have the same form of democracy we do.
TallDave
Seriously, they’re saying they’ve decided they don’t need a formal vote, since the TAL says they only have to write it. Of course they could change their minds and hold one, too. There’s nothing preventing it.
Most likely the reason they’re not having a vote is that everyone has agreed to the text except the Sunnis, who weren’t elected and will only use the occasion for grandstanding denunciations, and everyone else figures why give the opportunity. So they’ll keep talking, in the hope the Sunnis will allow for some kind of compromise, but I don’t think they’re expecting one (but at least they can say “Hey, we tried to include the Sunnis”.
The Iraqi gov’t appears to be making an interesting gamble here: they’re betting ordinary Sunnis aren’t all that opposed to the document. Again, it’s a low standard: to stop the referendum, those opposed would need 67% in all three provinces they have majorities in. They’ll probably win. Should be interesting.
Meanwhile, Al-Sadr appears to be doing his best to throw a monkey wrench into the works. His plan is still to seize force by power (hence the constant demands for “the occupiers” to leave). But he knows he’ll get his ass handed to him just like last time if he tries anything serious (remember those 100:1 kill ratios? religious militia vs. professional army = dead militia).
If the referendum is defeated, we have new elections, which, ironically, might actually be the best outcome. It would give the Sunnis real representation, and Iraqi voters know a bit more about what the parties represent now.
TallDave
They’ll probably win , meaning the Iraqi gov’t, not the Sunnis.
TallDave
Jimmy Jazz,
I saw that too, it’s very good news. It means they think the Iraqis will be up to speed by then.
It’s sad that some people are casting it as a retreat under political pressure. This is military planning.
TallDave
I mean, really, Bush can’t win with some people. We stay, they say it’s a quagmire with no exit strategy. The Iraqis take over, we’re retreating for political reasons.
Jimmy Jazz
Oh, I’m surrrrrrrrrrre that’s it. Iraq will have some well trained, motivated forces by next summer…well trained motivated forces whose orders come straight from Tehran.
To paraphrase Douglas Adams: “So Long, And Thanks for All the Heavy Weapons!”
Randolph Fritz
Allow Juan Cole to explain it all:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/08/26/sunnis/
Veeshir
Allow Juan Cole to explain it all:
Now that’s funny.
John S.
Now THAT really is funny!
Iraq is just like America…don’t you all get it?
gratefulcub
Yes, please disregard everything he says. He has studied the regional culture and political structure his entire life. He speaks Arabic (you can only understand as much about a culture as you understand about their language). He has lived in Lebanon, and travelled through area many times. He has Arab contacts in Baghdad. He reads and reports on several Arabic language newspapers. He reports on the many different factions within Iraq that the dreaded MSM do not seem to know exist.
So yes, if that crazy SOB tries to tell us what is going on in Iraq, what the different factions are arguing and fighting for, or what tensions exist today……please ignore him. He hates bush.
Please get your information about middle eastern culture from the ethnocentric Fox News, an oilman from west Texas via Connecticut, or Powerline.
Get your information about biology and science from a preacher.
Get your information about the climate from scientist working for Exxon Mobil.
Whatever you do, DO NOT read Juan Cole, and take into consideration his biases, and glean any useful information from what he says. He speaks arabic and doesn’t like Bush, he is probably a terrorist.
TallDave
Juan Cole didn’t even know Jenin happened after 9/11. Then when it was pointed out, he tried to cover up his mistake.
For an encore, he speculated Stephen Vincent was killed having an affair with his translator. Vincent’s grieving wife then eviscerated him with the actual facts of the case, in response to which he called her a fool. Classy guy.
TallDave
whose orders come straight from Tehran.
yeah, just like all our Hispanic troops take orders from Mexico.
BinkyBoy
Hey TallDave, I’ve already pointed out that that wasn’t Juan Cole that speculated the romantic affair with the translator, it was the Telegraph article that he was summarizing and trying to add comments about ME culture to.
Go ahead and blame Juan Cole though, it makes it easier for you to just ignore him and learn nothing about the area.
gratefulcub
forget it binky, the messenger has already been shot.
Darrell
Juan Cole is a partisan hack to the extreme who overstates (liesd about?) his fluency in arabic and is prone to wild hyperbole. I mean, c’mon, calling Vincent’s wife a “fool”? He spouts warnings about a “US war of aggression” with Iran.. He is a kook. And since when does ‘speaking the language’ give any sort of guarantee that one understands the culture? a ridiculous assertion. How many Americans who have never been to the UK “understand” British culture to any significant extent despite speaking the same language? Cole is one voice on the extreme.. there are many other voices who contradict him. Try reading some Iraqi blogs for example
Leftists like gratefulcub and Binky swallow his rhetoric without questioning Cole’s extremist statements because they themselves are so closed minded that they embrace anyone with a degree who will confirm their worldview
Darrell
Yep, this sums it up:
But gratefulcub, Bink, etc don’t see it because they refuse to look.
John S.
This statement works well the other way around, too.
Rightists like Darrell and DougJ swallow any rhetoric without questioning the administration’s statements because they themselves are so closed minded that they embrace anyone with auhtority who will confirm their worldview.
Darrell, meet projection. Now shake hands.
Darrell
DougJ is a parody poster.. I guess you haven’t figured that out yet. And in case you haven’t noticed, I make actual arguments with facts and logic.. I question authority, and I can see what a hyperbolic blowhard Juan Cole is. I mean really, how serious can you take a ‘scholar’ who talks about a “war of aggression” against Iran, and who didn’t know Jenin occurred after 9/11. Those errors and extreme statements are par for the course with Cole. He is an extremist with an agenda.. not a person in a sincere search for the truth
gratefulcub
not hook line and sinker; just another useful source.
A rant about the evil mr. cole from what appears to be someone that really dislikes him, no more sums it up than a rant about Bush by Juan Cole. What is that source anyway?
Darrell
Tell us then gratefulcub, what “useful” information have you gleaned from Juan Cole? That Iraq is a ‘war for oil’? That S. Vincent’s wife is a ‘fool’? Please share with us his pearls of wisdom.
BinkyBoy
Actually, I very rarely read Juan Cole, and when I do its usually just to see his take on a cultural issue.
He’s just another source, one to be taken at more face value than you Kool-Aid drinking cool kids that believe in the ideology of IOKIYAR. I’m sure none of you twits had ever heard of Jenin, nor would you have cared, it was just a nice way to bash on another “leftist” and be able to conveniently discount anything he wrote in the future.
Darrell
Given that Cole constantly brags about his arabic, and uses it as a hammer to silence critics.. a dishonest-as-hell tactic which would raise red flags for most people.. it’s interesting that when interviewed in Al Jazeera, he wouldn’t/couldn’t speak arabic because “the subject requires precision” and he felt that his arabic was too deficient to provide that precision. Juan Cole is not an honest man
BinkyBoy
yes, it just stands to reason that a man that was the first to convert the new Constitution can’t speak the language, he’s a charlatan and the University he works for should fire him for impersonation.
John S.
I thought you were a parody, too, since your ‘facts’ and ‘logic’ are generally anything but.
John S.
Now if only you held the Bush administration’s statements up to the same rigorous standards of someone as insignifacant as Juan Cole…
gratefulcub
Darrel,
Cole has done plenty of interviews in Arabic, that one he wanted to be cautious about. His level of fluency is not all that important, he does speak the language.
Pearls of Wisdom
Culture culture culture. You don’t get an in depth look at the culture of Iraq or the middle east many places. Not the news, not the papers, no where. And when you do, it is usually someone that isn’t very informed talking about the ‘arab street.’
I didn’t say that anyone that spoke a language was an expert. What I said was ‘you can only know as much about a culture as you know about the language.’ That is an exageration of sorts, but there is a ton of truth to it. I have studies some history and culture of Russia and China, but I didn’t really grasp what I was reading until I started learning the languages. I was never by any means fluent in either, but the more I knew, the more I learned about the people.
The media talks about religious sects and tribes in Iraq, but they never explain what they mean. Pundits go on tv and talk about tribes, but they obviously are just repeating something they read or heard. Cole has explained what tribes in Iraq are, and what their importance is. He has explained that there are more sects in Iraq than Sunni and Shia (and Sunni Kurds). He has covered in depth the fact that there are not just Arabs and Kurds. All Shias are not like minded.
The importance of Honor in a society is something I don’t understand. He has explained it.
If you can’t dismiss his politics, his thoughts of bush, his thoughts of Israel, him being liberal…..and learn quite a bit about Iraqi history and society, you are not using a source that is available to you.
BinkyBoy
Nose. Face. Spite.
gratefulcub
Clumsily written. His level of fluency is important, and I believe he has proven himself to be fluent in Arabic many times over. His ability to be interviewed on al Jazeera at a critical time and deciding to do it in English through a translator is not that important.
Darrell
Gratefulcub, I don’t understand why you would rely on Juan Cole when there are a plethora of Iraqi (and other middle eastern) blogs out there, written by Iraqis and middle easterners who definitely know more about there culture and languag than an extremist like Juan Cole.
Here’s one. Here is another discussing the problems of non-Iraqis (like Juan Cole) claiming to speak for or ‘understand’ Iraqis. Again, why depend on Cole when there are far more authoritative and knowledgeable views out there?? that is, unless you only want to have a certain closed-minded worldview confirmed
gratefulcub
Sorry, I use those too. Various views, various opinions. All I am saying is that he has some insights as well, and so I include him when I am trying to understand islamic culture. And to understand what is going on, and to inform opinions about what to do from here, the culture of the region is extremely important. I truly don’t care what he has to say about many things, they are just his opinions.
gratefulcub
Darrell,
Cole has an agenda, but your two links don’t? Most people writing a blog have an agenda. Doesn’t mean I can’t learn from Iraqpundit.
gratefulcub
Wooo Hoooo!!!! Only 12% think I am a traitor, and one percent isn’t sure.
I know it doesn’t fit on this thread, but I couldn’t help myself.
Darrell
Cole’s agenda = Bush hating propaganda
The Iraqi’s, who have far more vested interest and understanding, want Iraq to be a stable, successful democracy. Do you not see the difference? Because you seem to be equating Cole’s extremist biases with the Iraqis
BinkyBoy
Bush Hating = Iraq hating
Oh! And he I only thought I hated Bush and his ability to screw up everything he touches.
Thank you for clearing that all up. Now that I know that Cole hates Iraq and he wants Iraqi’s to all die at the hands of a ruthless demon like Saddam, well, I will never try to get both sides of the story again! I will only go read those that agree with you from now on, ok Darrell?
Magnum A-Hole
Nuke both sides. Blow the entire country to hell. The world will be better off with 100 million fewer Muslims. What the hell are we building these fun toys like neutron bombs for if we never get to see them blow? Geez.
Billmon
“The world will be better off with 100 million fewer Muslims.”
That’s a pretty ambitious target for genocide, Magnum. Shouldn’t you at least wait until you’re up to Hitler’s mark before shooting that high?
Mike
Yes! The ruthless, Iranian-trained-and-backed Shi’ite militias.