Elections: Part I
“NO MORE SHIITES AFTER TODAY”, read the Arabic words on Saddam’s tanks that rolled into the city of Najaf in 1991. Kanan Makiya thinks the regime was attempting to destroy Najaf's 1,000-year tradition as a center of Shiite learning. Mosques, libraries and seminaries were destroyed, ancient treasures were looted and monumental tombs were flattened. Anyone in a turban, the habit of a Shiite cleric, risked being executed (‘Republic of Fear’).
Prior to invading Kuwait Saddam had attacked his neighbor Iran and more
than a million deaths resulted. Saddam used chemical weapons in that
war as well as on its own people. In the first Gulf War Iraq was
invaded with the approval of the United Nations, sanctioned and limited
in his armament capabilities by U.N. resolutions. He was inspected by
the U.N. inspectors, expelled them, let them back in, and he hid
various secrets from them.
President George Bush accused Saddam of being involved in September 11
and having WMD’s. Bush was wrong about both, whether Bush was lying or
not I cannot say. I do not believe politicians, even ‘born agains’
think lying is a sin. Saddam was an Orwellian totalitarian dictator who
deported millions, tortured and murdered hundred of thousands of his
own people solely to retain his own power. And his removal from office
can be viewed as a humanitarian need like Darfur. The International
community which opposed the war also has done little to help the people
of Darfur. In fact Michael Howard, the Conservative Party leader in
Britain who backed the war has stated that had he known Iraq was ‘only’
a humanitarian disaster like Darfur he would not have backed it. Tony
Blair’s own Labour party was divided and without Michael Howard he
might have lost the Parliamentary vote. While Blair based his going to
war on the WMD’s, he did say in front of his own Parliament that there
was a humanitarian reason for invading Iraq. When asked about Robert
Mugabe (Zimbabwe) Blair responded “Yes, let’s get rid of them all. I
don’t because I can’t, but when you can, you should.” It is clear that
Bush had the same thought, America invaded Iraq because it could. That
it clearly miscalculated we shall shortly see.
Regime change given the January 30 elections apparently mattered to the
people of Iraq; eight and a half million voted in the face of death threats. In that election the voters elected members of a constitutional assembly with anonymous names for fear of assassination, despite being protected by the most powerful nation on earth. Given the Jihadist attacks, these anonymous names need to be the Arabic version of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson - to create a viable constitution to rule the U.S. It is worth noting that nearly half the men who signed the American Declaration of Independence had seminary training (Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, ‘A Patriot's History of the United States’). Even the American constitution and the government it created ended up with a very deadly civil war.
A young Iraqi man whose mother is Shiite and father Sunni criticizing
his parents acceptance of Saddam Hussein and said of the January 30
vote in Iraq “let the men and women die (trying to vote) in order to
give new life to the kids” (Wall Street Journal Jan. 31, 2005).
The Shi’a parties attained a majority in the assembly seats, 140 out of
250, the Kurdish parties 70 and the former Prime Minister Ayad Allayi’s
secular list 20, the remaining 20 are among several parties. The first
act of this assembly was to elect a Presidential Council consisting of
a President and two Vice Presidents. It took two months to accomplish
that task. This Council required the approval of a two third vote, all
other legislation including the make up of the Government, its Prime
Minister and other Ministers and the Constitution itself require a
majority vote. Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari was appointed; it took
almost another month until a government with Ministers has finally been
approved, due to further political infighting.
The President is Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, the two Vice Presidents
elected are Shi'ite Adel Abdul Mahdi and Sunni Ghazi al-Yawar. They
constitute the Presidential Council. They appointed the Shi’ite leader
Ibrahim al-Jaafari as Prime Minister, he was approved and he appointed
37 Ministers approved by the members of the Assembly on April 27
(Saddam’s birthday); 32 named and 5 anonymous. As expected the
Ministers represent the major ethnic groups, 17 Shi’a, 8 Kurd, 6 Sunni,
1 Christian and I Turkman and include 7 women. The assembly vote was
almost unanimous 180 out of185 votes. But what happened to the
remaining 90 members; one was killed that morning and the other 89
apparently were afraid as a result of the insurgency afraid to attend.
On May 8 the anonymous were named; four were Sunnis. Hashim
al-Shibli selected as the Sunni Minister for Human Rights,
resigned after being voted in by the Assembly. He said, remarkably that
he did not want to be chosen on ethnic grounds. He wants the government
to be chosen on merit.
The makeup of the Assembly and the Government tells us much. There is a
‘desire’ to have an inclusive government. The Shi’a parties attained a
majority in the assembly seats and the Kurdish parties about 30%. The
Sunni’s boycotting the elections as group; there are 17 members who are
of the Sunni sect. The attempt at inclusiveness can be seen by a
appointing one of the two Vice Presidents, the Speaker of the Assembly;
a Deputy Prime Minister and the Ministry of Defense (one of the four
critical ministries, Foreign Affairs, Interior and Finance) have been
reserved for them. Given the lack of any Sunni political party and only
seven percent of the member’s being Sunnis that may be the best that
can be expected. Yet the reason the Sunni members have not been
named is the lack of satisfaction and feelings of marginalization by
the Sunni. The new Sunni Vice President al Yawir is allegedly ‘not
representative’ because he is an exile as is the new (and previous)
Prime Minister and only elected by his tribe.
Women were guaranteed one third of the seats in the new assembly by the
interim constitution (TAL); they have 31% of the membership. Of the 36
members of the new government (chosen or reserved) six are women. Three
are Kurds of their eight members, one Christian, one Sunni and only one
Shi’a, who have more that 50% of the membership. This does not bode
well for women especially if Sharia law is included in the constitution
even as only one of the basis. How would President Talabani
wife Hero, a major women rights activist in Kurdistan react to Sharia
law? The head of the Constitution Committee of 101 members is a
Shi’a cleric Hummam Hammoudi with two deputies, one Sunni and one Kurd.
He has agreed to have 15 Sunni’s as members.
The proposed constitution needs to be completed by August 15 (less than
two months from now) and a referendum thirty days later; and then new
elections for a new Parliament sixty days after that. The entire
schedule can be postponed and probably will, for six months. It took
the Americans thirteen years to write its constitution.
The proposed constitution needs the approval of at least 17 of the 19
provinces by a two third vote in each province. Depending on the actual
proposed constitution will the three of the four predominately Kurdish
provinces vote ‘yes’ when ‘no’ might grant them more power, possibly
even independence? At the same time as the January 30 election in the
Kurd provinces a referendum was held on whether to remain part of Iraq
or become independent; 97% of the two million voters elected for
independence. Will three of the six predominately Sunni provinces vote
‘yes’ when ‘no’ might bring them more power? Would voting ‘no’ by the
Shiites and the Kurds allow them to escape from the Jihadist
insurgency?
The Kurds represent approximately 20% of the population, the Sunnis
another 20% and the Shi’as 60%. It is likely that five states will be
created under the new Constitution; three for the Shia, one Kurd and
one Sunni including Baghdad as the capital of Iraq.
Kurds:
"Our past is sad. Our present is a catastrophe. Fortunately, we don't have a future” (quoted by Hineer Saleem from his grandfather). Things have changed from Saleem’s grandfather’s day.
Since the Gulf War and the U.S. and Britain imposed ‘no fly zones’ the
Kurds have been running an independent entity they refer to as
‘Southern Kudistan’; the majority of the Kurdistan people live is in
Southern Turkey (as many as possibly 12 million Kurds), Western Syria
(1.5 million) and Northwestern Iran (as many as 8 million) for a total
population of twenty five – thirty five million. That is their obvious
problem. They have been militarily and violently oppressed by all four
countries including Iraq.
The key to this problem is the city of Kirkur. Currently Kirkur
with a population close to one million is like East and West Jerusalem
with three parts (Kurds, Arabs and Turks) each passionate about their
rights. Kurdish leaders call Kirkuk their Jerusalem.
On election day, a rocket landed near the Ahmed home decapitating a
16-year-old named Yusef. "We are willing to pay with our blood, like
water on the floor, because Kirkuk is a Kurdish city and should stay
part of Kurdistan," said Yusef's mother, her husband Sabrir Kareem
Muhammad kissed a photo of their son. In council elections in Kirkur
the Kurds won 26 out of 41 seats.
Half the population of Kurds, growing up since 1991 do not speak Arabic
or identify with the Iraqi state, favor outright independence, and
their leaders worry that if the new system did not preserve their
autonomy, these demands might grow.
Independent sources confirm that 120,000 Kurds were forced north out of
Kirkur and Arabs installed in their homes and neighborhoods. Human
Rights Watch has called the Arabization of Kirkur, the ethnic cleansing
of the Kurds (March 2003). The Kurds are creating ‘facts on the
ground’ bringing Kurds back into Kirkur and dealing with the
’settlers’, interesting terminology to one who resides in Israel.
The Kurdish leaders will demand Kirkuk and its oil revenue – 40% of
Iraq’s reserves. Can they achieve that? PUK's leader Jalal
Talabani has become the President of Iraq’s Provisional government; his
role is to protect Kurdistan. Will he have the power to draw the lines
of the Kudistan State so as to include Kirkur?
Shi’ites:
The Shi’a won 50% of the votes and have 140 seats of the 250 member Assembly, a majority, but insufficient to have the referendum on the Constitution approved. Will the Shi’a provinces approve by a two third vote in each province the new constitution? The Shia provinces have the political-religious leadership and can create a policing/military power but they cannot have the constitution approved unless both the Kurdish and Sunni provinces agree.
Will the Shia insist of Sharia law? The key to this is Aytatollah
Sistani.
Despite his adherence to his "quietist" version of Shi'ism as demonstrated
during the election and its aftermath Sharia law is still likely to be the main source of Iraqi law.
What if a majority of the Shi’tes vote for some aspects of the Islamic Sharia religious laws, such as the very sensitive personal status rules; marriage (including polygamy) and divorce, inheritance laws and women and family rights? The Kurds would almost certainly oppose those and they need to be satisfied with the constitution; the Sunnis might also oppose them, since Sunni Sharia law is different than Shi’a Sharia law. There are many versions of how to interpret Sharia law. Can Shi’a states be ruled by Sharia and Kurdish states not? Indonesia, the largest Islamic country in the world recognizes the different religious interpretations and allows each province to choose whether to implement Sharia law, which one or accept a civic law. Another example is Nigeria. Muslim states are based on Sharia law and the Christian provinces have a secular legal system. Can this work in Iraq; each State having its own legal system?
Sunni:
The Sunni power came from Saddam, his tribal family and his hometown Tikrit. The insurgency, possibly the most important problem in the country is supported by the Sunni’s and largely made up by their ethnic group. Only 23% of the Sunni’s feel life is better than under Saddam; compared to 87% of the Shi’a and 95% of the Kurds ((Mansoon Moaddel, Lebanon Daily Star, May 18). The Sunnis are the major political casualty of the war and the Shi’ites and Kurds the winners.
Will the Sunni’s approve the constitution? They clearly made a serious
error in boycotting the January 30 election. The elections signified
the end of the Sunni hegemony that characterized Iraqi politics since
the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1920s. By the massive boycotting the
Sunnis proved that had not yet accommodated itself to its loss of
power, both ethnically and religiously and have not recognized this
power shift.
As a result the Kurds had more power. If the Sunni’s had voted and
received say 50 seats (less than the Kurds do to the chaos in the Sunni
triangle of the country) it likely that the Shi’a and Kurds would not
have the two thirds necessary to elect the Presidential Council. They
would have been forced into a coalition with either the Sunni’s or
Allayi’s largely secular party.
On May 21, 2005 Sunni leaders met in Baghdad to set a new agenda. They
will attempt to have input into the new Shi’ite dominated
constitutional committee. Tarik al-Hashimy, leader of the Sunni Iraqi
Islamic Party, one of the conference organizers stated "We're trying to
build a concrete coalition for the next election."
If the referendum is disapproved a new election for a new National
Assembly will be required and the process starts over again. In this
election the Sunni’s will vote and have more power than in the original
assembly. Will some Sunni’s develop this as a tactic for rejecting the
referendum? It only requires three of the eighteen provinces to reject
the constitution for it to fail. Six of the provinces are primarily
Sunni and four are primarily Kurd. (Half of the voters are women. If
the constitution adopts Sharia law limiting women’s rights will women
reject it?
What happens if the constitution is rejected? Given the ethnic
conflicts within the country this certainly seems possible, perhaps
even likely. Does the whole process become a failure? Do the Kurds 97%
of whom already voted for independence opt out and become independent?
If that were to happen would the Shi’a opt out? Does Iraq break down
into its three ethnic states? The insurgents will certainly see that as
a victory.
Insurgency:
The invasion of Iraq has had serious consequences for the Iraqi people; the insurgency. One can and should blame the Americans, although the Iraqi’s lives were a horror during the Saddam era. The many mass graves attest to that. The Americans should be blamed for miscalculating what it would take to not only invade, for which they succeeded but also for policing the result. They failed miserably. Bush did not listen to General Colin Powell when as Secretary of State he said if you break it you are responsible for fixing it. He listened to Rumsfeld and he is responsible for not ‘fixing’ it. Fixing it means security and reconstruction among other factors. The U.S. has spend hundred of billions of dollars ‘breaking’ Iraq. In the fall of 2003 the Congress allocated $18.4 billion for reconstruction. As of June 2005 approximately one billion has been spent of actual reconstruction (Senator Joseph Biden in a speech at the Brookings Institute in June 21, 2005). That is not sufficient to count as ‘fixing it’.
Rumsfeld rejected his own Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinsheki
who stated it would take ‘several hundred thousand’ soldiers to occupy
Iraq. In addition the U.S. lacks an understanding of the Arab
mentality; at the beginning of the war there 6931 German speakers in
the Department of Defense, 6723 French speakers, 4194 Russian speakers
and only 2864 Arab speakers (Defense Department Science Board).
There is in fact a four prong insurgency: they include Ba’ath remnants
partly set up by Saddam before he was overthrown; the al Zarqawi led
terrorist group; Iraqi islamicized nationalists (both Sunni and Shi’a
including the young Shia Moktada al-Sadr) and criminal gangsters acting
as local warlords. Tens of thousands of Iraqi’s have been killed by the
insurgents. It may be hard to distinguish between the Ba’ath and the
Islamicized insurgents; the latter include both Sunni’s and Shi’ites.
One can only speculate as to the different objectives of the groups
except for the criminals).
None has stated a clear objective. The Ba’ath and the nationalists want
the Sunni’s to have a bigger piece of government power. The Iraqi
nationalists specifically want more Sharia law built into the new
constitution. The Sunnis make up the thousands of native Iraqis that
make up the core of the insurgency. Of the 14,000 detained held by the
U.S. only some 600 are foreign detainees (Anthony Cordesmann,
Lebanon, Daily Star July 2). This despite that the suicide bombers are
primarily foreign – see below.
The al Zarqawi group is part of the al Qaeda whose overall goal is a
re-establishment of the Caliphate. Its purpose is to stop democracy in
the Arab world. According to several sources more than half of al
Zarqawi’s suicide bombers come from Saudi Arabia, the Islamist capital
of the world (Rueven Paz, 61% of 154 names, Evan F. Kohlmann, more than
50% of 235 names and a Washington Post analysis of websites listing the
dead suicide bombers, 44% came from Saudi Arabia - Washington Post, May
15). Al Zarqawi is a believer in Saudi Wahhabism. “Both those who
are far away and those who are near acknowledge the truth of the
tripartite satanic coalition of heresy and deceit in the land of the
two rivers [Mesopotamia]. The first are the Americans who carry the
banner of the cross; the second are the Kurds through their Peshmerga
forces, under the command of the two collaborators, [Mass'oud Al-]
Barazani and [Jalal Al-] Talabani, which are reinforced by Jewish
military cadres; the third are the Shi'tes, the Sunnis' enemies,
represented by the Army of Treachery, the Badr Corps – the Party of
Satan. Beware of [the Shi'a]. Fight them. By God, they lie."
In an audio he stated "The [collateral killing] is justified under the
principle of dharura [overriding necessity], due to the fact that it is
impossible to avoid them and to distinguish between them and those
infidels against whom war is being waged and who are the intended
targets. Admittedly, the killing of a number of Muslims whom it is
forbidden to kill is undoubtedly a grave evil; however, it is
permissible to commit this evil – indeed, it is even required – in
order to ward off a greater evil, namely, the evil of suspending
Jihad."
Al Zarqawi threatened those who exercise their right to vote in Iraq
with death. ‘Enemies of Islam, prepare yourselves and fortify whatever
you like, wear as much armor as you can. . . . Our fallen [go to]
heaven, and yours - to hell. While your reinforcements come from
the Jews and the Christians, our reinforcements come from the Blessed
and Lofty Allah . . . [you] serve the crusaders.’
Al Zarqawi has defined his opposition to democracy. The very core of
the democratic governments he noted is a system “based for [the] people
[and] by the people’ on the principle that the people are the source
and sole sovereignty of all authority. The ‘one who is worshiped and
obeyed and deified, from the point of view of legislating and
prohibiting, is man, the created, and not Allah . . . He can choose any
religion he wants and convert to any religion whenever he wants, even
if this apostasy means abandoning the religion of Allah’. A Hadith
reported by Al-Bukhari and others: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill
him.' It does not say 'leave him alone'.” In his latest web statement
he compared democracy to the ‘golden calf’ of the ‘children of Israel’!
He has called the Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani as "the devil" and the
"imam of apostasy and atheism".
The insurgents operate primarily in the center of the country; the
Sunni triangle; and the Sunni’s feel its impact; 77% stated their life
has become more dangerous, only 41% of Shi’ites and 17% of Kurds feel
the same way (Mansoon Moaddel, Lebanon Daily Star, May 18). More than
one of the insurgent groups is antidemocratic and more than one is
fundamentalist.
Much of the relationship between these groups and the newly installed government is still in flux and future relations difficult to predict.
The success of the insurgency can be considered to be the result of
American incompetence. The American military plan did not predict an
insurgency or have a plan to overcome It. Major Isaiah Wilson III
recently wrote the official history of the Iraqi war. “There was
no . . plan” for occupying Iraq after the
combat phase. While a variety of government offices had considered the
possible situations that would follow a U.S. victory, no one developed
a plan laying out an operational strategy to consolidate the victory
after major combat operations ended and the regime collapsed. Since it
was clear that Saddam would be defeated that is gross neglect and can
only be placed on Donald Rumsfeld’s desk. Wilson continues that the
U.S. military lost the dominant position in Iraq in the summer of 2003
and has been scrambling to recover ever since. “In the two to three
months of ambiguous transition, U.S. forces slowly lost the momentum
and the initiative . . . gained over an off-balanced enemy . . .The
United States, its Army and its coalition of the willing have been
playing catch-up ever since”.
It was only in November 2003, seven months after the fall of Baghdad,
that U.S. occupation authorities produced a formal plan to stabilize
operations. “Reluctance in even defining the situation . . . is perhaps
the most telling indicator of a collective cognitive dissidence on part
of the U.S. Army to recognize a war of rebellion, a people's war, even
when they were fighting it,” he comments. Because of this failure,
Wilson concludes, the U.S. military remains “perhaps in peril of losing
the 'war,' even after supposedly winning it.” Anthony Cordesman, a well
known Middle Eastern scholar has estimated it will take years until the
insurgency is overcome. The U.S. planned for at least a year the war,
it planned for less than a month the peace.
Major Wilson’s report is devastating to U.S. military planning. While
there are winners in this war (Iran, Turkey and Israel) America and its
prestige are not.
In late May 2005 Despite Vice President Richard Cheney stated
"insurgency was in its last throes". In mid June General John Abizaid,
the Centcom chief, had to admit "more foreign fighters [are] coming
into Iraq than there were six months ago". Donald Rumsfeld stated that
the "throes" were likely to go on for 12 years or until 2017. How many
more Americans and Iraqi’s will die in those twelve years? The Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) has noted in a classified report leaked to
the New York Times that Iraq is breeding the new, lethal
generation of jihadis, Is this like the jihadi generation created as a
fringe benefit by President Ronald Reagan involvement in the
Afghanistan-Soviet Union war?
Does this explain why Republican Congressman Walter B Jones (famed for
insisting that the Congressional cafeteria re-label French fries as
"freedom fries" on its menu), a man who represents North Carolina's 3rd
Congressional District, home to the Marine's Camp LeJeune and who voted
enthusiastically for the Iraq War, recently seemed to have changed his
mind. Last week he became one of four congressional sponsors of a
resolution calling for a timetable for withdrawal. "Do we want to be
there 20 years, 30 years?" he asked at a Capitol Hill news conference.
"That's why this resolution is so important: We need to take a fresh
look at where we are and where we're going." Another Republican
Senator Chuck Hagel (one of only three senators who fought in Vietnam)
says, "Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White
House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just
making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in
Iraq." And Republican Senator Mel Martinez pronounces himself
"discouraged" by the "lack of progress" in Iraq.
Daniel Ellsberg who leaked the ‘Pentagon Papers’ noted the difference
between Vietnam and Iraq. "In Iraq, it's a dry heat. And the
language that none of our troops or diplomats speak is Arabic rather
than Vietnamese."
While the President denied withdrawal or timing for such was a
possibility could he be wrong?
Clearly problems remain to be resolved. The Iraqi’s may be happy to
have been liberated from Saddam, but they are unhappy to be occupied.
They are eager to have the occupiers leave, but happy to be protected,
even if incompetently by the occupiers.
Part II
The Likely Constitution in the Referendum that Establishes the State of Iraq:
Iraq current border’s was created in London and Paris by drawing a line
in the sand. It was part of how Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan, the Gulf
states and Saudi Arabia were all created. There were no natural borders
or natural ethnic or religious lines considered. We now have a country
less than 100 years old in a neighborhood were the ancient world
created writing, where Greek western civilization began and where
Abraham the ‘father’ of the three monotheistic religions was born.
Poll after poll in Iraq as to their most important issues list
security, jobs and ‘self determination’. The latter does not
necessarily mean democratic institutions in the western sense but
‘social democracy’; a level of government involvement greater than
practiced in the U.S.
What kind of a country can survive in Iraq; A Unitary State or a
Federated state? Given the ethnic lines already hardened as seen
through the election results a Unitary state simply will not work. A
Federated government is where both the federal government and each
state retain certain defined powers. The federated system will have to
give some sharing of the police/military and taxing power to both the
central and state to be acceptable to the Kurds. The Kurds will demand
retaining their own police and military power, they have operated
independently since the 1991 Gulf War. They will demand a significant
amount of the revenue sharing coming from the oil revenues from Kirkuk.
The division of authority and sharing of powers between the central and
regional authorities will have to be determined in the constitution.
Recently Mr. Bakr al Yasseen, a secular Shi’ite who has ties to Jalal
Talabani, the Iraqi president and Kurd leader, is demanding for the
south the same broad powers that the Kurds now have, including an
independent parliament, ministries and regional military force. While
religious Shiite parties now dominate the national government, many
people here fear that the parties may not adequately defend the rights
of the south and worry about the rise of another authoritarian
government, perhaps a conservative Islamic one. Ahmad Chalabi and Sheik
Abdul Kareem al-Muhammadawi, a prominent member of the National
Assembly, are planning to propose a regional vote on the question of
southern autonomy in October, at the same time as a national referendum
on the constitution.
Several other important issues: is Iraq to have a Presidential system
or a Parliamentary system; how independent will the Judiciary be; and
the role of Islamic law.
The makeup of the Assembly and the Government tells us much. There is
an obvious desire to have an inclusive government. The Shi’a parties
attained a majority in the assembly seats, 140 out of 250, the Kurdish
parties 70 and the former Prime Minister Ayad Allayi’s list 20, the
remaining 20 are among several parties. Despite the Sunni’s boycotting
the elections as group there are 17 members who are of the Sunni sect.
The attempt at inclusiveness can be seen by a appointing one of the two
Vice Presidents,
The Speaker of the Assembly; a Deputy Prime Minister and the Ministry of Defense (one of the four critical ministries Foreign Affairs, Interior and Finance) have been reserved for them. Given the lack of any party and only seven percent of the members that would seem like inclusion, even if 20% of the population are Sunni’s. The reason the Sunni members have not been named is the lack of satisfaction and feelings of marginalization by the Sunni. The new Sunni Vice President al Yawir is allegedly ‘not representative’ because he is an exile as is the new (and previous) Prime Minister and only elected by his tribe. The Sunni’s who controlled Iraq under Saddam may be seeking more than is possible.
Women were guaranteed one third of the seats in the new assembly by the
interim constitution (TAL); they have 31% of the membership. Of the 36
members of the new government (chosen or reserved) six are women. Three
are Kurds, of their eight members, one Christian, one Sunni and only
one Shi’a, who have more that 50% of the membership. This does bode
well for women especially if Sharia law is included in the constitution
even as only one of the basis.
The Committee to draw the constitution was established on May 10 and is
composed of 55 members all of the National Assembly: 28 Shi’ites, 15
Kurds, 8 from Allawi’s primarily secular party, and one Turkman, one
Christian, one Sunni and one Communist. It can be expanded.
It is well known that the Kurds are seeking independence. Everyone from
the dictatorial Syrians, the clerical dominated Iranians and the Turks
who despite their democracy and military power have fought for decades
against Kurdish independence. The Kurds would claim as their capital
Kirkuk with its oil, 40% of Iraq’s reserves. They would keep their
military (called ‘peshmerge’). The Oil income would be divided with the
central government and the latter would pay for armed forces. The Iraqi
armed forces would be forbidden to enter Kurdistan. Non Kurdish Turkmen
have lived there for centuries; the Arab Sunnis were imported by Saddam
when he expelled the Kurds. According Transitional Administrative
Law – TAL – this is to be determined after the final constitution is
operational and a census taken. The Iraqi electoral commission already
allowed 100,000 Kurdish refugees to vote in the elections. Saddam had
in his Arabization policy exported 150,000-250,000 Kurds in the early
1990’s. The London daily Al-Hayat called "Kirkuk is the jewel in
the Kurdish throne and a powder keg with respect to the unity of Iraq"
(Feb. 4, 2004).
Will the Sunnis accept an Iraq where they are in a minority? Will they
fight against the insurgency which is largely Sunni? Or do they feel
humiliated, their honor besmirched and feel the need for vengeance and
will therefore support the insurgents? If they do back the
insurgents that will increase the Kurds demand for independence.
On June 28, 2005 the Ayatollah Sistani proposed that voters in national
elections would select leaders from each of the 19 provinces instead of
choosing from a single country-wide list, as they did in January. The
new system would essentially set aside a number of seats for Sunnis
roughly proportionate to their numbers in the population, ensuring that
no matter how low the Sunni turnout, they would be guaranteed seats.
The Shia would seek a federal State with most powers remaining with the
central government, but they cannot achieve that. Both the Kurds and
the Sunnis have the power of Provincial votes to prevent that
happening.
Thus the only conceivable state is a Federal government.
No one is suggesting that Iraq will become a liberal democracy any time
soon. Anyone who thinks that is simply naïve. It is the victimized
Shi’ites and the independent Kurds who won the elections; the few
liberals, all secular minded, have not done as well. The Kurds will
ally themselves with the Shi’ites’ how much autonomy will they demand;
would it border on independence?
Given that the constitution needs to be ready for a referendum by February 15 (assuming the current dates are postponed by six months as allowed in the TAL not much time for these antagonistic and fractured parties to agree on a state. If the referendum is rejected the whole procedure begins anew: a new National Assembly, a new Provisional government, a new committee and a new constitution to go to a referendum.
Will Iraq’s ethnic grouping, the Shi’a, Sunni and the Kurds
fragment into a civil war? Will Turkey or Iran interfere openly or
covertly into Iraq’s fragmentation?
Turkey:
The dream of independence may come true for the Kurds of Iraq -- making Kirkuk an official part of Northern Kurdistan -- is a nightmare for the Turkish government. From Ankara's perspective the creation of a Kurdish state in their northern neighbor with Kirkuk as its capital would serve as a magnet for Turkey's own Kurdish population which may be between 6-10 million persons. (The number of Kurds in any of the countries is very difficult to know since they are fearful of census takers.)
While Turkey may be at the mercy of forces beyond its control, its
military power is anchoring its strategy to the political process in
Baghdad and, as part of that, a peaceful solution to the Kirkuk
question. However public pressures resulting from Ankara's manipulation
of the Iraqi Turkoman question and the limited but existent deployment
of Turkish troops on Iraqi soil could create a dynamic of their own,
possibly precipitating military intervention over Kirkuk. Could Turkey
make a preemptive strike into northern Iraq to prevent the rise of an
independent Kurdish – it is certainly possible. Turkey interest to
obtaining membership in the EU may mellow their concern about the
Kurds. In addition they may consider as positive the potential
use of the oil in Kirkuk.
Iran:
Iran is the biggest danger to Iraq. If they attempt to convert Iraq into their active form of Shi’ism a civil war of immense danger lies ahead. No one seems clear on the role the Iranian Mullahs will play. Do they want a stable Iraq controlled by a very different kind of Ayatollah? Will the quietism of the Ayatollah Sistani have a positive or negative impact of the politically active Iranian Ayatollahs?
The Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomeini developed the idea of the ‘Guardianship of the Jurist’ (velayat e faqih) – the spiritual and temporal leader of the People. This view was a revolutionary idea developed by Khomeini known as the ‘Imam. This assumes he is the successor to the twelfth Imam. According to A. Sachedina (a noted Shi’ite scholar) he heard many times the expression in Iran after the Revolution ‘There were three idol breakers, Abraham, Muhammad and Khomeini’. In the Iranian-Iraqi war Khomeini developed a ‘theology of death’ associated with martyrdom.
The Shi’ite modern version of Islamic martyrdom - suicide bombing - can be attributed to the Ayatollah Khomeini. He elaborated on the Shi’ite tradition using the Qur’anic term ‘mustazafin’ – the weak, the disinherited and the enfeebled who in Christian language will inherit the earth. They became the leaders of his revolution. During the Iraq-Iran war (1980-1988) he convinced ten of thousands of defenseless boys and teenagers to go through fields mined by the Iraqi’s to die yelling ‘Ya Hussein’. There deaths became a form of redemption earned through works – the works being death by suicide/martyrdom. The insurgency using suicide bombing took these tactic indirectly from Iran.
An additional problem is the four to six million Kurds in Iran. They as in Saddam’s Iraq and in Syria have their basic rights and language oppressed. They are not Shi’a and thus considered ‘infidels’ by the Ayatollah’s. They live in the Kurdish border next to Iraq and Turkey. The Kurds in four countries make up a perhaps 20 million population, a sizable country.
They Iranian Kurds rebelled in 1979-1982 and were crushed by the
clerical regime. They do have members in the Parliament, but they are
part of the Reformer movement which has itself been crushed by the
Clerics in recent years. The Kurds are the largest challenge to Iran
stability. In Iran they are considered an Arab influence as against the
Persians.
Syria:
Less known are the 1.5 million Kurds in Eastern Syria next door to Southern Kurdistan, 10% of the population. They are also an oppressed minority, lacking basic rights – the citizenship of 300,000 was striped in 1962 – they are forbidden to speak their own language. In 2004 an insurrection of the Syrian Kurds was crushed causing an unknown number of casualties. But there have been, at times, good relations between Syria and the Kurds. The PUK whose leader Talabani is now the president of Iraq was founded in Syria (1975). Syria's Grand Mufti Ahmad Kaftaro, the highest Muslim authority in Syria, from 1966 until his death in 2004, was a Damascene Kurd.
What is as is likely the insurgency is not contained soon how long will
the U.S. stay in Iraq? The U.S. troops remain in Europe sixty years
after WWII and fifteen years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is
clear that America cannot afford a to leave Iraq to be overtaken by the
Jihadists, That would allow for a Jihadist insurgency in Saudi Arabia
and the rest of the Gulf states.
Can we evaluate the long term results in Iraq? As Zhou En Lai, the
Chinese prime minister in the 1970’s said when asked about the results
of the French revolution of 1789 “it is too early to say”.
By Khaled al Kishtayni born in Iraq:
As a boy I loved to wander down Al-Rashid Street and through the Christian and Jewish quarters there. [One day] I found myself in the Hanoun market in the Jewish quarter. Suddenly a door opened, and an elderly white-haired man with a long white beard came out.
He raised his hand towards me and beckoned me to come to him. I was overcome by fear, but could not fight the magic in his fingertips, which drew him towards him like a magnet. He opened the door, and told me to go in. I could not disobey, and he led me in with his hand. I began to ask myself whether this was my end. I wished I had not entered! Why couldn't I escape and run back to my family?
He asked me what my name was, and I answered “Khaled”. He said: “Wonder of wonders, [like the name of the Muslim commander] Khaled bin Al-Walid. And where do you live? And how old are you?” I said to myself: “He is asking how old I am in order to be sure my blood is suitable for the deed. He placed his hand on my head and asked: 'Khaled my son, do you know how to light a fire?' Another wave of terror swept over me. Would he cook me over a fire? He said: 'Show me how you light the fire in the stove.' I took a match, and lit the stove with shaking hand’.”
“This man, one of the people of the Torah, the Talmud, and the Mishna, kissed me on the head and led me to a room with an antique cupboard. He opened one of the drawers, took out a handful of chocolate, and filled my pockets. He led me, completely amazed, to the door, opened the door, and bid farewell, blessing me, wishing me a long life, and adding: 'Give regards to your father.”
I left, astounded, and hurried home like somebody who has awakened from a strange dream. I told the story to my father and brothers, and they laughed at me, and said: “It is the Sabbath. The Jews are forbidden to light fire on the Sabbath. The poor old man was thirsty for a cup of tea.”
We shared the chocolate, and I spent the rest of the week counting the days until the Sabbath, and then until the Sabbath after that and the one after that. Every Sabbath I went to that same alley, hoping that the white-haired old man would open the door and that I would light his fire, and he would fill my pockets with chocolate. But the door never opened again, and those ancient features, from Biblical times, did not reappear. Recently I have been thinking about knocking on the door and asking: “My uncle, Abu Sasson, do you need anybody to light your fire?” (MEMRI, April 5, 2005)