August 25, 2005
KURDISTAN, SHI'ASTAN AND ?:
Divided They Stand (DAVID BROOKS, 8/25/05, NY Times)
"The Bush administration finally did something right in brokering this constitution," [Peter W.] 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 good deal this is. The Sunni leaders selected to attend the convention are howling because they are former Baathists who dream of a return to centralized power. But ordinary Sunnis, Galbraith says, will come to realize this deal protects them, too.
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."
A unified Iraq was a worthy goal to shoot for, but once Iraqis rejected not one worth fighting for. Posted by Orrin Judd at August 25, 2005 10:00 AM
Hmm, my understanding was that the administration was shooting for an Iraq based on a form of loose Federalism from the very beginning. I'm pretty sure I got that idea from www.strategypage.com, but that was a while back -- I can't remember the details.
Posted by: Pat Phillips at August 25, 2005 12:44 PMYeah I always understood it to be a federal structure they were proposing.
Posted by: Amos at August 25, 2005 2:01 PMFederalism or not, just how "loose" is it. I would vote for very "loose" but I'm not allowed to vote.
Posted by: h-man at August 25, 2005 2:25 PMSince there never was an Iraq, it was impossible ever to have goals, worthy or not, for it.
Once the Kurds get a nation and oil, expect the bloody dissolution of at least four other phoney nations.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at August 25, 2005 2:49 PMIronically, given the oil curse and the one great city, the Sunni would have a shot at coming out of all this better off than either the Kurds or Shi'a, but only if they get their Reformation right.
Posted by: oj at August 25, 2005 2:55 PMHarry:
You are usually only this snarky towards Christians. Must be a rough day in Hawaii, with fuel shortages looming.
Syria may have a bloody dissolution, but I doubt if many tears will be shed for them. They will probably have to let the Kurds go quietly. Turkey is another matter, although they would be wise to say good-bye, too. I don't know what Iran will do. They may actually force their Kurds into Iraq and Turkey.
Posted by: jim hamlen at August 25, 2005 3:09 PMWorks for me. How bad are you expecting it to get out there, Harry? She Who Must Be Obeyed is heading out to Molokai for three weeks in September, will there be gas enough to fill up the Vespa?
Posted by: joe shropshire at August 25, 2005 3:43 PMI talked to the governor yesterday. She'll cancel the gas cap if supplies are disrupted.
Gas went up 8 cents overnight to $3.20, and I spent about four hours today trying to find a business that said it was being hurt enough to raise prices. Couldn't find a one.
If the Kurds get a nation-state and oil money, then a Great Kurdistan cannot be far behind. I said when I came in, though no doubt it's forgotten, that there ought to be 19 states in western Asia instead of 10.
I'm sticking with that.
You guys ought to read the chapters about 'Iraq' in 'Empire of the Seas,' which is about Commodore Shufeldt, the first representative of the U.S. government in that part of the world. You'd have thought it was a paradise; it had everything Orrin desires for a good society: monarch, aristocracy, supremacy of an Abrahamic religion over society, no towns, no SUVs, and no soccer.
Lots of parasites, though.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at August 27, 2005 12:34 AMActually, what you were saying then was that not only would there be no Greater Kurdistan but no Kurdistan. But then you're a Realist so you don't get how America works.
Posted by: oj at August 27, 2005 12:40 AM