Here is something positive (I think) from the Sunni Triangle:
For weeks before Iraq’s constitutional referendum this month, Iraqi guerrilla Abu Theeb traveled the countryside just north of Baghdad, stopping at as many Sunni Arab houses and villages as he could. Each time, his message to the farmers and tradesmen he met was the same: Members of the disgruntled Sunni minority should register to vote — and vote against the constitution.
“It is a new jihad,” said Abu Theeb, a nom de guerre that means “Father of the Wolf,” addressing a young nephew one night before the vote. “There is a time for fighting, and a time for politics.”
It is a four-pager, but read the whole thing.
Steve S
I believe the vote on the Constitution is over. The Sunni’s lost.
Does that mean they go back to the regularly scheduled Jihad against the infidels?
Shygetz
No time to read the whole thing, but Interesting If True.
Sojourner
The open question is whether the majority will be sensitive to the interests of the minority Sunnis. If the majority uses the same tactics as the Repubs in this country (we won, you lost, go f yourself), there will be civil war.
Veeshir
If the majority uses the same tactics as the Repubs in this country (we won, you lost, go f yourself),
That’s the system we have, winner takes all. It worked the same way when the Dems were the majority party. Read up on Tip O’Neill for example.
Iraq seems to be heading more toward a parliamentary system where it isn’t winner takes all. Like Germany where they have ‘coalitions’ of various parties splitting power.
Regardless, if you lose you have to accept the consequences. If you only accept democracy when you win then you don’t accept democracy.
DecidedFenceSitter
Then perhaps, the Sunni’s shouldn’t accept democracy. It may not be in their best interests.
Presume that the party in power would always be in power, or at least, that you would never be in power. Not being in power meant that all you could do is vocalize opposition to policies; but that would not effectively do anything.
Why play in the game if you are only going to lose, or the odds of you winning are so long to be practically 0? Why play nice? Why play at all?
We’ve got another Yugoslavia brewing here. Racial/Ethnic diverse groups being forced to cohabitate in the same gov’t due to lines on a map being drawn by an outside force.
This will end in tears and war.
Shygetz
Veeshir–yeah, the two-party system sucks. Sucked when it was Democrats, sucks now, will suck tomorrow. But we didn’t have a two-party system when we wrote our Constitution; Iraq does. So, the Sunnis are getting the shaft from the set-up; not surprising that they aren’t happy about it.
p.lukasiak
Is “Ghaith Abdul-Ahad” the Arab translation of “Sue Schmidt”?
Lines
Hey Veeshir, go look up Nafta and its voting record during a Democratic majority and tell me that things were just as bad for the Republicans in the 90’s as they are for Democrats right now. Please, continue to push for 90’s martyrdom despite the fact that Clinton forced the parties to work together on countless bills and issues.
Veeshir
First, where did you get this? Please, continue to push for 90’s martyrdom
I said it worked the same way. You got 90s martydom from that? That’s pretty funny.
Veeshir—yeah, the two-party system sucks. Sucked when it was Democrats, sucks now, will suck tomorrow.
I disagree. I like winner take all. You get results instead of namby-pamby EUnuch nothing ever getting done crap. You give the people options and they decide and it gets done.
Now, if we could take politicians out of the loop things would be better, but that ain’t happening.
Hey Veeshir, go look up Nafta and its voting record during a Democratic majority
You’re bringing up NAFTA? That was Bill Clinton’s prize when he wooed the GOP to get it passed. The minority in Congress worked with the President from the majority party. So that was Dem fighting Dem, Clinton, using congressional GOPers, vs congressional Dems.
As for this
and tell me that things were just as bad for the Republicans in the 90’s as they are for Democrats right now. Ummm yes. At least for the first 4 years.
As for before the 90s, read up on Tip O’Neill. Seriously.
As for this
Then perhaps, the Sunni’s shouldn’t accept democracy. It may not be in their best interests.
What the hell does that mean? The only ones whose interests are not served by democracy are totalitarians.
Adults accept that they can’t always get their own way. Are you saying the Sunnis are children?
Sojourner
This is simply untrue. When the Dems were the senate majority party, the Repubs could use blue slips and Rule IV to block judicial nominees. Hatch himself availed himself of these protections. When Hatch became chairman of the judicial committee, he terminated the very protections he had used as the minority lead. He simply chose not to follow the rules that were still in place.
Winner take all is Republican bullshit. The result is a badly divided country and the Republicans are implementing legislature that only their most conservative and/or righteous right base agrees with. Fortunately for the Republicans, most people don’t pay attention to politics so the radical right can get away with this crap.
Sojourner
Actually, it is those who believe they deserve complete and total power who act like children.
Andrew Reeves
Presume that the party in power would always be in power, or at least, that you would never be in power.You’re only going to have a united Shi’ite/Kurd front for so long though. Once that group splits (which is almost definitely going to happen), you’re going to have SCIRI vs. Sadrists vs. Kurds vs. Secular Shi’ites, who will hopefully be manuevering around each other without guns.In such a scenario, a re-branded Ba’ath party would make a perfect coalition partner to any one of those groups. Which means they have every reason to take part in the political process.
jg
I know you are but what am I?
stickler
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the voice of the unschooled:
No, that’s not the system we have, and it’s not the system we’ve had since 1792. We have a system with (some of us learned this in junior high school) “checks and balances.” That’s why there are three co-equal branches of government. That’s why even a small minority of Senators can gum up the works to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
In 1937, Franklin Roosevelt’s Democratic Party had a massive majority in Congress — the Republicans were reduced to 17 (!) seats in the Senate. Yet FDR still couldn’t get his court-packing plan through the Senate, with a huge majority and massive popular support at the height of the New Deal.
This is evidence that our system may be characterized by many terms. “Winner-take-all” isn’t one of them.
Veeshir
Oh, so the House Republicans are working with the House Democrats?
Yeah, the minority can gum up the works, but the majority gets things done.
That’s what I meant, I obviously wasn’t clear.
But the point is valid, Iraq is going to a parliamentary system that’s not the same as ours. In comparison to a parliamentary system, ours is “winner takes all”.
DecidedFenceSitter
Congrats, did you stop at that line and read no further?
It is in U.S. Democratic party’s best interest to continue to play the “game” of Democracy because they have a chance to win, and a stake in the game. The risks of not-playing are higher than the risks of playing.
Tell me why it is in the Sunni’s best interest to go along with this plan. Explain to me where the benefit it is to them?
Andrew, quite rightfully so, points out that the Shi’ites and Kurds will not maintain their alliance forever. And that is most certaintly true. However, the question is how the split will fall, and whether any of the ethnic groups will break rank and this becomes a balance of power issue where several smaller groups balance against one or two of the larger groups.
Now this is ignoring the Sunni objections to the Constitution, the division of Federal powers, and other issues. From what I remember reading, this Consitution missed by 12 percent in one district. Two districts said no with a supermajority (67%), and one said no with a majority (55%). If I remember reading. If you wish to challenge, I’ll go look it up, but I’m spending too much time writing this already, considering it will get ignored.
We might be inclined to say to the Sunni’s, “You lost, you didn’t participate, now you pay the price.” Which is, of course, vaguely similar to the cry to those who complain about the administrations actions, “You lost, get over it.”
However, the Sunni’s have decided, as there is always available, a third option. Armed fighting. I’m going to get dragged out over the coals for equivacates this next item, but what the hell, maybe it will do some good. If not, I can always ditch this name and start anew. Only John would know, and anyone he decided to tell.
Look at the American Revolution. Look at the Declaration of Independence. Read the protest of what actions. For the signers of the Declaration, there was no reason to play within the rules of polite society anymore. They had tried that and failed. They had decided that, in the end, there was no way for them to win at the game, and at which point they took that same third action. Armed conflict.
And this will be what gets me damned. Because while I find the actions of Sunni’s detestable, I can see similarity in motive with those who forment rebellion anywhere in the world, for the motive becomes the same. The system does not address their needs adequately. They do not perceive the system is working fairly and justly, and therefore they have no other step but to take to armed action.
Armed action is rarely the first course of action. You may be just in saying, “Give it time, it will work out.” However, that is assuming that everyone is rational actor working in a rational world. This isn’t how it is. You have people who were formerly the top dogs now reduced to the bottom of the pile; and maybe the Constitution will work, maybe it won’t. I don’t know. And neither do they. However, they are far more scared of what will happen in THIS Iraqi government then they are of fighting for what they want.
Just contemplate what I’m saying, don’t kneejerk and say I’m sympathizing with the terrorists. I’m not. Assuming that every warfighter there has the same motives is simply foolish. However, it is in my opinion, that unless something is done, soon, and it may be already too late, to give the ethnic Sunni’s a bigger stake in the government, to give them the faith that there is a reason for them to “buy-in” to Government that this conflict will continue until Iraq either splits into its ethnic sections ala Yugoslavia; or one side has committed genocide ala Africa specifically Rwanda.
Sojourner
A war based on erroneous intelligence.
Record deficits.
Tax cuts for the wealthy with ballooning deficits and cuts for programs that benefit the working class.
…
Yeh, it’s working real well. Uh huh.
Jorge
A side issue…
Why would Iraq being a Democracy make it less likely to be a safe haven for terrorist? I’m really curious. And I don’t mean terrorists attacking Iraqis, but for terrorist groups working within Iraq?
Democracy does not mean “anti-terrorism.” Getting people involved in the political process of their country makes them no less likely to want to blow up westerners. A democratically elected President or Prime Minister is no less likely to turn a blind eye or covertly allow terrorist groups to work within their government. Terrorists are often recrutied when they are living and studying in democratic countries.
Shygetz
Last I heard, Palistinians live in what is technically a democracy. Lots of terrorism there. And Veeshir never addressed the fact that the Iraqi constitution itself was written in this “winner take all” system, while the US Constitution wasn’t.
And “winner take all” just results in going from one crappy extreme to the other crappy extreme. I’ll take compromise, thank you very much.
Jorge
Just to give people further ammo. Any discussion of protecting our country and people from Islamist terrorism that does not begin with this basic premise “We must become completely energy independent within the next 30 years” is basically kidding themselves.
Actually, that would be my campaing slogan for a Dem running in 2008 – “If you’re not talking about energy independence then you’re not talking about… most major issues.” Such as “If you’re not talking enegy independence, you’re not talking about ending terrorism” or “If you’re not talking about energy independence, you aren’t talking about shrinking the defecit.” or “If you’re not talking about energy independence, then you aren’t talking about creating new jobs.” Bang it into people’s head how Hydrogen or other alternative fuel sources would revolutionize and revitalize everything from industry to the stock market to government spending to how much we actually cared about the future of the middle east or to our every growing oil rivalry with China.
Now, that should give people plenty to shoot at.
Veeshir
Last I heard, Palistinians live in what is technically a democracy. Lots of terrorism there.
One man, one vote, one time isn’t a democracy. It’s “democracy”.
And Veeshir never addressed the fact that the Iraqi constitution itself was written in this “winner take all” system, while the US Constitution wasn’t.
Isn’t the Iraqi system a parliamentary system? A constitition doesn’t mean you have to have a US system.
Take Israel. They have a parliamentary system. Sharon’s party was the biggest, but they worked with the other parties so Peres was foreign minister even though that’s like Bush having Kerry as Sec State.
We might be inclined to say to the Sunni’s, “You lost, you didn’t participate, now you pay the price.” Which is, of course, vaguely similar to the cry to those who complain about the administrations actions, “You lost, get over it.
Well yes, they’re similar in that they have some of the same words, but the important difference is this one you didn’t participate
They appear to be figuring that out.
Rick
Amazing how many “progressives” just gag at the thought of all those little brown people running their own affairs with some God-like-but-U.N.-blessed strongman keeping a knife at their throats.
I wish Dear Emperor SmirkyChimp McHitlerburton dozens more failures just like this one.
Cordially…
Steve S
And there you go… We’re all racists because we think a country ought to work out it’s own problems without a big nanny holding their hand.
Todd D.
Has anyone bothered to compare WaPo’s version of this article to the longer one in the Guardian?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5319184-103550,00.html
The full version is more stark in portraying this as a potential precursor to conflict.