March 29, 2005
What's the Old Saying About Elections Without a Government?
Iraq’s elections on January 30 were an impressive event, considering the danger to all parties involved. But the government that was supposed to be formed as a result of those elections hasn’t come to fruition. Is this just the byproduct of good old-fashioned political wrangling, or is the Iraqi experiment in trouble?
The elected members of the Transitional National Assembly (TNA) were to form the executive branch of the Iraqi Transitional Government (ITG) during their meeting on March 16, which they could not. Nor could they in their subsequent meeting today, March 29.
It's understandable, of course. The ITG is tasked with writing Iraq's constitution, which will shape the country's future government; no group is willing to give ground. Why would they?
Four main problems must be resolved, as Iraq scholar Phebe Marr noted recently: the Kurdish question; the role of Islam; the role of Sunnis; and how to remove foreign troops as quickly as possible without destabilizing the country. These questions must be resolved in the constitution-building process. It appears, however, that the main players are finding it difficult to overlook them long enough to form a government.
Although US government sources attributes the delay to the challenges of consensus building and not infighting, the calls from Shi'a lead Ali al-Sistani for the Shi'a and Kurdish groups to work together would indicate that the groups are having trouble working together (today's session was described by some as "chaotic").
Although the US has maintained an admirably hands-off approach to the entire process in Iraq, Bush's remarks today in the Rose Garden indicate that the Administration may be getting antsy. This is likely, especially considering the fact that Ghazi al-Yawar, Bush darling and former Interim President, has recently removed himself from the running for Speaker--and may in fact have left Iraq altogether.
The timeline set out for the ITG gives its up to 18 months to draft a constitution, but it contains no provisions for the chance that those deadlines will not be met. Most sides would agree that if consecutive deadlines are missed, the precarious glue holding the government together will begin to decay, and the insurgency will have the upper hand.
Will Bush & Co. remain laissez-faire if that happens? It's doubtful. They've got too much invested to allow their democracy experiment to go up in smoke. They'd rather steer the process themselves, risking the criticism of the American left and the international community, than allow it to collapse entirely.
Such a government, of course, will have a difficult time defending its legitimacy to its neighbors. The challenge for the US, then, is determining the point of no return.
Posted by schtaple at March 29, 2005 11:53 AMOne also has to wonder if the Iraqis are able to come to a consensus and develop a constitution that nationalizes oil reserves or some other such policy the US would be vehemently against, would the Bush administration accept it? Im inclined to think that no they would not. The constitution they are trying to develop in Iraq as schtaple observes needs to address “the Kurdish question; the role of Islam; the role of Sunnis; and how to remove foreign troops as quickly as possible without destabilizing the country” but it also has to address the fact that the US is currently sitting in Iraq and has ample influence over what is being emphasized as the country rebuilds. I don’t think it is possible for the Iraqis to develop a constitution freely without regard to the influence of foreign corporations fully supported by Bush administration.
Posted by: Vex at March 29, 2005 04:36 PMVex, I’m pretty sure that oil is one of the least concerns of the Iraqis at the moment. However, it is quite probable that should Iraq ever establish itself as a wealthy country, its citizens will begin to feel robbed of their oil. But then, that would be many years in the future, if ever. Quite frankly, the Shrub administration is quite safe in claiming Iraqi oil as their own (save for international/liberal criticism).
Posted by: Zeek at March 29, 2005 04:42 PMI’m pretty sure that oil is one of the least concerns of the Iraqis at the moment.
I should’ve made this more clear, but part of the “Kurdish question” is oil; Kurds want control over oil-rich Kirkuk, which would in turn change the balance of power as to how oil revenues will be distributed.
The main question at this point is what model will be used: the federal model (used in Nigeria to some success, lots of failure), which would distribute oil revenues to all provinces; and the local model, which would allow oil revenues to remain in the provinces where the oil was extracted.
Posted by: schtaple at March 29, 2005 04:48 PMWriteing a constitution and determining where oil proceeds should go might be too tough for the Iraqis to figure out, perhaps they should let Saddam loose and let him control everything again?
Saddam would be happy, the American left would be happy, and any money saved here by pulling out could be used for welfare, another “big dig” or some other nonsense.
Its ironic that the left will fight “tooth and nail” for public education, that has seemed to work “A little less than wonderfull” for many, many years, and wants to dump our efforts in Iraq after a few months.
Posted by: Beagle at March 29, 2005 06:03 PMWell one issue with what you’re saying, Beagle, is that no one is dying from being educated. And as far as I can tell, people basically agree that education is good for our nation. Not everyone believes this about Iraq.
The way I see it, at least, is that you can’t blame people for pointing these things out. We are in a pretty crappy situation in Iraq, but I think it would be foolish for people not to think that the government wouldn’t give their best efforts to make sure a government forms.
It’s hard to try to figure out how to fix a problem if you don’t even know what the problem is, and you yell at anyone who is trying to illuminate problems.
Posted by: Po at March 29, 2005 06:59 PMRegardless of how good or bad things get in Iraq, let us never forget that this is a Republican Operation and they alone bear responsibility for this.
Posted by: Aldous at March 29, 2005 07:56 PMOn balance, the Bush policy in Iraq has been a success and will be judged so by historians, just as the Reagan policy, so maligned at the time by the chattering classes, is now being judged as sound by those with better perspective. However, I don’t think Republicans can, should or will get all the credit. Thanks for the offer, however.
Posted by: jack at March 29, 2005 08:49 PMWill Bush & Co. remain laissez-faire if that happens? It’s doubtful. They’ve got too much invested to allow their democracy experiment to go up in smoke. They’d rather steer the process themselves…
I wish. Excellent article, schtaple.
On balance, the Bush policy in Iraq has been a success and will be judged so by historians
More wishful thinking. We used to call that, “whistling in the graveyard”.
On balance, the Bush policy in Iraq has been a success and will be judged so by historians
Well Jack, I’m glad you are a futuristic historian who already has that better perspective.
It may be, in the end, that the Iraq policy is judged as a success, but I think you’re jumping the gun a bit to say that at this point.
I guess one can always hope and have confidence.
Regardless of how good or bad things get in Iraq, let us never forget that this is a Republican Operation and they alone bear responsibility for this.
Aldous,
How I wish that you were right. But unfortunately much of the rest of the world does not divide America into conservatives and liberals. To them, the war is waged by America as a nation, not by Bush. Perhaps in the eyes of future Americans the blame (or gratitude) will go to the Republicans, but in the eyes of the rest of the world, it is just America. If this war is a failure, the blame may go to the Republicans. But the increase in amount of people who hate America, caused by the war, will not only hurt the Republicans, but all Americans.
Posted by: Ryan at March 29, 2005 10:07 PMJack, I’ve noticed that your criteria for the success or failure of Bush policies is based on whether the world ends or not. That makes it pretty easy on Bush. But remember, just because everyone in the Special Olympics gets a medal doesn’t mean they’re all winners.
I really wonder what criteria Jack is using to measure success. Watching the Red Column, I have noticed that they always take the credit when something good happens (Lebanon People Power) but remain very silent when the bombs start going off. I suppose the Future Historian will just cherry-pick which History he publishes like Bush does with Intelligence.
Posted by: Aldous at March 29, 2005 11:25 PM“Well Jack, I’m glad you are a futuristic historian who already has that better perspective.”
Thanks Po, I needed a laugh.
On another note, I think it should be pointed out that some number of Iraqis (I won’t be so conceited as to assume it’s a majority or even a large portion) view the Terrorist bombs and the infamous “collateral damage” strikes with hope. They believe the daily catastrophes are a worthy sacrifice for the promise of a better life. Keep in mind, I don’t know how many people “they” accounts for, but I know that at least some Iraqis feel optimistic.
Posted by: Zeek at March 29, 2005 11:40 PMSure, Zeek. But it didn’t have to be so bungled. And that’s not hindsight. Plenty of people on both sides of the aisle were warning that lack of troops for security would cause problems.
I can’t think of anything that would have made Iraqis vote for Allawi’s secular ticket more than security and quick reconstruction while he was heading up the interim government. That he got less than 14% of the vote is a clear referendum on Bush’s support for Allawi’s secular government.
It seems to me that this is the crux of the Democrat criticism about Bush’s handling of the postwar situation in Iraq. The Republicans are too willing to accept a formulaic approach, where if certain signposts are reached, the efforts are treated as successful. The Democrats, though, want a more meaningful engagement of the country, one that doesn’t depend on arbitrary goals, but instead substantive successes.
In short, the successes brought out of the Iraq situation must relate to our success in converting the place to a democratic perspective, not to extraordinary efforts by the Bush P.R. people and folks on the ground to put an impressive face on poor results.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 30, 2005 02:18 PMFrom AP, “it didn’t have to be so bungled”
Didn’t it AP? Didn’t it?
Stephen, I still think a democracy is a shakey idea, but we’ll soon see I suppose.
Posted by: Zeek at March 30, 2005 07:00 PMA needed illumination in simple, stark terms, that we’re entering the most critical phase of the future of Iraq. Well done, schtaple.
It’s clear from previous comments, that the Right is longing for the days when they could cast the Iraqi situation in broad, simple Bush Doctrine themes like ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’, and/or had John Kerry to indict as a Saddam-supporting traitor for pointing out the obvious roadblocks.
I must say, I’m quite surprised by the current impasse. I thought for sure we’d see a coalition government in place and the Kurds placated with all their demands met, at this juncture. But, two things that are quite obvious to these newly elected Iraqi officials, are no matter how much they progress on a new government and Constitution, it will not end the Insurgent’s violence. Yet, the closer they do come to achieving those goals, the greater the pressure from their constituents to set a timetable for the withdrawal of Coalition forces - which they rightly fear is a risk they cannot take.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at March 30, 2005 08:01 PMIn short, the successes brought out of the Iraq situation must relate to our success in converting the place to a democratic perspective, not to extraordinary efforts by the Bush P.R. people and folks on the ground to put an impressive face on poor results.
I think that this is still buying in too much to the Bush team PR. I will be happy if the Iraqis become a democracy, and happier still if they are a friendly democracy. However, I will not consider the war a success unless there is a substantial benefit to US security as a result. This was, after all, the stated reason for going to war. Unless a case can be made that more lives were saved by the war than the 1500+ killed and 11,500+ Americans wounded, the war is a failure. Unless it can be demonstrated that the billions of dollars we have spent on that war have made us more safe than spending that amount on, say, defending our borders, the war is a failure. I am happy for the Iraqis, but in pretty much every real measure, the war has been detrimental to the USA. Therefore, it is a failure of epic proportions.
Posted by: brian at March 31, 2005 12:00 AMDear Reader,
My name is Anahà Lazarte and I am a graduate student at the Univeristy of Illinois at Chicago researching political blogging.
I am conducting a survey and I would very much appreciate your collaboration. Please take this survey online and let me know what you think: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=32741950394
Feel free to pass this link to others who might be interested. The survey needs to be completed by this Sunday at midnight (April 3).
Your responses will help communication research to study political blogging and the experiences of Blog users. The goal is to achieve a better understanding of how individuals relate to media and the Internet, and how they perceive the political information that is available across different media.
Participation in this survey is voluntary and confidential.
Thanks! For additional info call 313-413-2128 or send an e-mail to alazar3@uic.edu.
Anahi Lazarte
Graduate Student
Department of Communication @ UIC.
What do you guys think? Honest Student or Homeland Security Spy? It is the way things are today that I fear we could implicate ourselves just by taking this “Survey”. Having our names in a List may not be a good thing right now. Ah… Nothing like living in a Democracy.
Posted by: Aldous at March 31, 2005 03:22 AM
