| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Iraq-Jordan | ||
| George Will Pontificates About Future Elections in Iraq | ||
| 2004-04-29 | ||
| .... On June 30, the deadline for transferring "sovereignty" to something Iraqi, no such thing will happen. There will be nothing to receive sovereignty, and the United States, whose writ does not run throughout Iraq, does not possess real sovereignty to give away. The new faux government will lack two main attributes of sovereignty: a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence and the ability to make laws. .... We may call this a government, but as Lincoln said: If I call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does the dog have? Five? No, four, because calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg. Brahimi is a useful reminder of how limited are the United Nations’ uses. He says Israel is complicating his governmental carpentry in Iraq, and force is "never" the right answer to problems such as the seizure of Fallujah by armed insurgents. So, calm would come to Iraq if Israel returned to the 1949 armistice lines? Brahimi is called the best the "international community" has to offer, which may be true.
Elections should assure those of the Shiite majority that they will rule, thereby concentrating their minds on the practicalities of governance. Elections will put the Sunnis on notice that they must come to terms with majority rule. Might elections provoke a Shiite-Sunni civil war? Yes. ... But in Iraq, civil war might be preferable to today’s combination of disintegration tempered by violent Sunni-Shiite collaboration against U.S. supervision. .... In Iraq, the Shiite majority needs to be assured now that it will rule soon. Violent Sunnis must be crushed. Shiites need an incentive -- protecting their capacity to rule after elections -- to crush them and to discipline their own ranks. .... The results of elections, including theocratic elements, may be markedly unlovely. That may break the big hearts of those in the U.S. government who hope for a luminously liberal democracy to shame the entire Middle East into emulation, thereby justifying the war originally justified primarily by the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. But pursuit of that ideal can impede achievement of something tolerable: a stable, perhaps illiberal, even authoritarian Iraq which cooperates in the war against terrorism. Call this an exit strategy.
| ||
| Posted by:Mike Sylwester |
| #11 Maybe you skim instead of read. I didn't say Bernard was weak..I said that your attempts to latch onto him, in order to shame me, were weak. Plus... <I>Georeg Will doesnt state his agreement with me, OR with you. Could that be because he is not here on rantburg this morning? I'm sorry, I thought that you were capable of defending your own ideas without relying on Bernard or Lewis to verbalize them for you. He states that Iraq might end up with civil war, and with an authoritarian regime. That was the basis of my point, which I'm quite sure you never read (and are not at this moment reading). You just got your little sensitive feelings hurt because I insulted you - and we arne't really going to get beyond that, are we? He DOES not attribute it to the nature of Islam. He is silent on that. Did I say that he did? Does GW have to weigh in on this for you and I to form our own opinions? Besides, if you READ what he said, "Might elections provoke a Shiite-Sunni civil war? Yes. ... But in Iraq, civil war might be preferable to today’s combination of disintegration tempered by violent Sunni-Shiite collaboration against U.S. supervision. .... " it' pretty clear that he is supporting my belief that it's unlikely they can get it together more than he is lending support to your wanna-belief that And furthermore your tap-dancing around the obvious fact that Islam is a culture that revolves around blame, just proves you can't even acknowledge the obvious...so I don't see any point in discussing this further. |
| Posted by: B 2004-04-29 12:13:28 PM |
| #10 Bernard Lewis isnt weak, hes tough as nails. Look, Im not going to argue with you about whether Islam is based on blame. I dont speak Arabic, you dont. I havent studies the Koran, you havent. The only evidence that I see that Islam is based on blame is the usual attempts of some Arabs, mainly Palestinians to blame others for their problems. You know what??? Thats common around the third world, a combination of leftist ideology and actual oppression, resulting in something dysfunctional. Some non-muslim countries have overcome it. SO have some muslim countries. Georeg Will doesnt state his agreement with me, OR with you. He states that Iraq might end up with civil war, and with an authoritarian regime. He DOES not attribute it to the nature of Islam. He is silent on that. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-04-29 11:32:45 AM |
| #9 Brahimi sounds to me like a strawman. Iraqis in general have no respect for the UN but are still a little suspicious of US motives. I would guess after a few weeks of listening to Brahimi, they will be begging Bremmer to get on with the program. |
| Posted by: john 2004-04-29 11:29:04 AM |
| #8 Ha! Attempting to insult me because I'm not as smart as some people you claim to represent is weak, LH. Besides, a truly smart person weighs ideas on their individual merit - not on who voiced them. I suppose I deserved it, since I insulted you first, but you could have skipped the whole, "you aren't as smart as these guys" routine, since you did get to the meat of OUR argument here: And the Shiites have an INTEREST in democracy - since ANY strong man regime, even one with a Shiite head, is capable of being subverted into another Sunni Arab dictatorship. Will they give adequate minority rights - Im not sure, and this is where Will is vague. I do think they will realize that maintaining a constitution without minority rights will cost more than its worth. We are right back where we started, since you think that they will just wake up and realize the benefits to them of minority rights, and I think there is little in their culture or actions that would support your optimism. In fact George Will doesn't seem to agree with you either. And as for your comments about the culture of forgiveness, are you DENYING the Arab culture is a culture of blame? Come on. If it was tough in a Christian culture...that just makes my point stronger. My argument is that we would be wiser to acknowledge that it is highly unlikly that they are going to wake up and realize that, after thousands of years, blame is not the way to achieve power but tolerance and diversity is. Scoff. Yeah Right. No my point is that we should not expect them to turn into diversity saints overnight, but to help set up their government as we did our own...individual states with their own power structures (so minorities are guaranteed a voice) and then give those states co-equal powers at the federal government to cooperate on common interests. That's what the EU is doing, that's what our own country does - why do you expect such a higher standard for the Iraqi's? |
| Posted by: B 2004-04-29 11:08:48 AM |
| #7 Like I said elsewhere today, their religion is not based on forgivness or tolerance, but rather on BLAME. 1. I distrust arguments about what politics is possible based not on an analysis of realities on the ground, but on judgements about religion. Bernard Lewis, who knows far more about Islam than i suspect you do, disagrees. Of course he is fluent in Arabic, turkish, and i think Persian, and has studied the texts of the region for decades, so i guess hes less qualified than you. Do you read Arabic?? Have you read the Koran and the Hadiths? And the major legal texts of Sharia since then?? How can you say what the religion is based on? And are you talking about Shia Islam in particular, or Islam in general?? There are deomcratic governments in Turkey, in Indonesia, and IIRC in Eritrea. Perhaps Im too influenced by cynical guys like Madison and Hamilton, but I think interest is as important as a culture of tolerance or forgiveness (by the way the US in the 1790's DID NOT have a culture of forgiveness - you want to see unforgiving politicians I suggest you read about that era) And the Shiites have an INTEREST in democracy - since ANY strong man regime, even one with a Shiite head, is capable of being subverted into another Sunni Arab dictatorship. Will they give adequate minority rights - Im not sure, and this is where Will is vague. I do think they will realize that maintaining a constitution without minority rights will cost more than its worth. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-04-29 10:35:03 AM |
| #6 we need to impress on them that a "strong man", even a Shiite strong man, endangers the Shiite position Because they are not going to be impressed! Like I said elsewhere today, their religion is not based on forgivness or tolerance, but rather on BLAME. How can a society that's entire identity is based on blame possibly function as a representative democracy? Perhaps, if there was a more equal population division between the three (Kurds, Shia, Suni') then it would work. Like I said on another post today...you can't have a representative democracy if those who will surely get elected (Shia's) don't believe that the views of the minorities that they represent are valid views??? IJMHO...but we need to give them the same start that our own states, with differing needs and goals had. Pretending that we can impress something on them that we ourselves, in the beginning of our own country could not have achieved is a recipe for failure. If we set them up as states with seperate states with co-equal powers at the federal level..they would have a chance. |
| Posted by: B 2004-04-29 10:02:11 AM |
| #5 B Im not sure what youre trying to say? What demands am I making?? The "it will lead to civil war" sounded like a throwaway line, mainly to make the point that we should NOT move away from elections out of fear of civil war, as a civil war (I presume Will envisions a quick victory of the Shia and Kurds over resisting Sunni Arabs) is better than Sunnis and Shias against the US. Im not sure I agree, but it IS thoughtful, and I DONT see that that necessarily leads to an authoritarian state. What part of what I have said about Will's column do you disagree with?? |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-04-29 9:50:44 AM |
| #4 God bless you liberalhawk - but that is why you are a liberal. You want things to be as they should be rather than as they really are. Head in the clouds instead of feet on the ground. That's ok, we need people like you...but just not in charge of things like this where pragmatism is more important than dreams. Sure, I'll agree with you...it SHOULD be just as you say. Now are you willing to look at the pictures of the dead children when ...as we can ALL see from 100 miles away...that your demands will result in a civil war? George Will is acknowledging that this is a recipe for a civil war..and you are ok with that? Why not set this ship on a course that has a chance of reaching the open ocean, instead of charting a course right into the rocks. I don't understand your logic. Better to set things up for success than to demand pefection that will surely fail. |
| Posted by: B 2004-04-29 9:44:12 AM |
| #3 i found the column very thoughtful and inciteful, though i think the final reference to an authoritarian Iraq was more pessimistic than the rest of the column justified. If, as Will says, we give the Shiites a stake in majority rule, why should they want an authoritarian state?? we need to impress on them that a "strong man", even a Shiite strong man, endangers the Shiite position. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-04-29 9:31:05 AM |
| #2 What a pessimist ..jeesh...thank God he's not in charge. All the more reason to divide them into states, where the Shia, Kurds and Shites can each have their own state-like government to rule their day to day, and the average Shia or Kurd activist can participate in the process without being forced to revolt to have his beliefs heard. Then you make their federal government an entity that works to help these states cooperate on issues of mutual benefit - ...just like the EU is supposed to do...and (as I posted last night on the divide Iraq thread) LIKE OUR OWN COUNTRY DID. Who is it that is forcing the idea that the Shia's and Sunni's need to suddenly hug, have a mecca cola and sing kumbaya together? It's not going to happen. It didn't happen in our own country...the federal government was never meant to usurp states rights...for the very same reasons that we are seeing in Iraq. The different states had different interests and the power leaders (and people) in those states had NO interest in giving up their influence to some stupid "federal government". It's stupid...stupid! I tell you..to demand from the Iraqi's what even our own forefathers could not accomplish. GW just sounds grouchy. Give the man a cup of coffee. We've got minds that can do better than that! |
| Posted by: B 2004-04-29 9:17:00 AM |
| #1 Brahimi sounds like the typical UN office rat,Joooos complicate everything, force solves nothing, blah,blah,blah I can't fathom why GW is giving Brahimi and the UN the opportunity to fug Iraq up. No matter what kind of face we put on the transfer of power the US is going to get nothing but criticized from the UN and our own 5th column media. So why bother with the UN at all? Political coverage for other coalition members? |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2004-04-29 8:33:38 AM |