 |
 |
 |
IraqÕs Constitution does little to erase
the regional distinctions between northern Kurdistan, southern
Shiite provinces and Sunni regions in the countryÕs middle
section. It
remains to be seen whether codifying this decentralized structure
will hold Iraq together, however loosely, but imposing a
stronger federation would surely hasten the prospects for
civil war. The Americans have worsened the chances for compromise between
the hated rivals, imposing unelected Sunni Baathists and
clueless outsiders who de-legitimize the process. Ultimately,
the document reflects the priorities of the elected
Shiite and Kurdish representatives: the former enshrining
Islam
as the Òofficial religion of the stateÓ so that Òno law can
be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules
of Islam.Ó The
Constitution grants Kurdish equal status--along
with Arabic--as one of the Òtwo official languages of Iraq,Ó and Òendorses
the region of Kurdistan and its existing power
as a federal region.Ó In
general, therefore, members of these two factions voice support
for ratification, but recently withdrew changes to rules
that would almost guarantee its approval. The
perspectives of the players put the Constitution in context:
Sunnis feel the squeeze between the insurgents in their midst (who attack Sunnis working American or Iraqi officials) and the soldiers and administrators who suspect them of aiding the insurgency. Those with obviously Sunni names are subject to searches and questioning, facing discrimination in hiring from Shiite- dominated officials. Sunnis fear granting regional autonomy to Kurdish and Shiite areas would Balkanize the country into hostile factions that undermine the central government, which is their best hope for minority protections.
Kurds will retain most of their hard-won freedoms, and have long identified themselves as Kurdish in language, culture and ethnicity, rather than Iraqi. Having worked through ferocious power struggles during their years of semi-autonomous rule, Kurds have emerged a more unified block than the Shiites or Sunnis, and have enjoyed relative calm and prosperity since the American invasion.
Shiites were oppressed under Ottoman, British and Baathist rule, and are determined to assert their religious beliefs, advocating an expanded role for clerics. They resist guaranteeing women the rights they enjoyed under secular Saddam, and the Bush
Administration has been reluctant to galvanize their close ties with Iranian Shiites by pushing this point. Of course it was the violence following the American-led invasion that curtailed womenÕs freedoms over the last two years, but ShariÕ a law would legitimize many of those losses. Controlling 80% of the proven oil fields—and access to shipping lanes in the Gulf—adds financial leverage to their majority population.
Understanding Iraq by William R. Polk
This book provides a quick tutorial of IraqÕs history in a 213-page turner that illuminates the context of the current crisis. The long tradition of autocratic rule does not bode well for democracy, nor does the deep-seated mistrust of a central government fostered by brutal regimes from the Mongols to the Ottomans. Americans have repeated all the mistakes of their British forerunners, who were likewise distrusted for their oil-driven occupation. In a depressingly familiar pattern, Britons attempts to install a pliable government were surprised by the fierce resistance, paying dearly for their ignorance of religious and political rivalries. The sham Constitution and Parliament and the brutal repression of insurgents eroded support for ÒdemocracyÓ, and created a culture of violence and anti-imperialism that brought the Baathists to power. US policies--as with censuring the media and imposing criminals like Chalibi and Al-Allawi--were doomed as recycled repression, abetted by our Anglo allies and neo-consÕ exceptionalist delusions.
How America Lost Iraq by Aaron Glantz
This diary of an American reporter for anti-war Pacific Radio documents how the U.S. lost the hearts and minds of Iraqis over the course of the occupationÕs first year. He focuses on the often-ignored casualties of war: local civilians, whose gratitude towards their liberators evaporates in the face of the daily frustrations and escalating violence. Glantz details countless cases of wrongful detentions, causing months of frantic searching by relatives (who are rarely notified) and feeding the insurgency when tortured victims are finally released. Desperately unemployed Iraqis are angered by overpriced outsourcing and subject to humiliating searches and seizures. US soldiers compensate for language barriers and faulty intelligence with overwhelming force, and fail to appreciate the religious significance or political history behind the resistance. GlantzÕs perspective is rarely heard in the mainstream media, and the recent murders of foreign journalists may quiet those voices in the future.
War Made Easy by
Norman Solomon
SolomonÕs chilling account of the propaganda tradition exposes the unholy alliance between the media, the military and the industry that thrives on war. Although BushÕs advertising appointees have spun Òperception managementÓ to dizzying lows, they use time-tested tactics. Label your former friends (Noriega, Saddam) ÒHitlerÓ; exaggerate the good vs evil dichotomy, paint your adversary as the aggressor to your reluctant peacemaker, question the patriotism of any cynics, and youÕre off to battle. While the motivation of Cheney, Inc. and his no-bid bandits are as clear as their morals are murky, why would the press poodles fall for such time-worn tactics? Because they profit as well. Ratings explode when the bombs fall, and the military morality plays to their preference for black-and-white drama. Pre-packaged propaganda minimizes the expense of foreign correspondents or in-house research. Nuance serves no one, and blonder-than-life heroes like Jessica Lynch are made in the USA Today. Civilian carnage is consigned to Al-Jazeera reporters, who then become casualties. Solomon derides ÒjournalistsÓ as Òstenographers,Ó who lag far behind the public in criticizing the war. He notes NBC is owned by GE, which burns the contracts at both ends, from weapons to reconstruction. At a time when checks and balances are needed the most, the Fourth Estate looks Òmore like a fourth branch of government,Ó keeping the public dumbed down, distracted and docile, while the Pentagon hijacks 9/11 for its perpetual Òwar to end all peace.Ó