I can’t help but think that Sistani and the Shiites acquiescence to the preliminary constitution was motivated largely by fear of terrorist attacks sparking a civil war. Did Al Qaeda unwittingly galvanize the Iraqi population and make the transition to democracy easier to implement for the US? I submit that they did. Also, what’s your opinion on Sistani? He seems like a fair and intelligent leader–anyone disagree?
If Al Qaeda was a major force there I might agree with your assumption… AQ is not the major “terrorist” in the Area by far. Sunnis and those with something to lose from the new government are the major problem makers.
Any group that doesn’t play along with the americans now might find itself with less of a part of the future government and the paybacks and privileges they certainly are seeking. Its about who get how much power… if signing the darn thing helps keep 'em in the game they will. As soon as its bad for them they will rip it in half and try something else.
Sistani certainly seems to be quite balanced in his approach… neither going against the americans but also playing the UN only is legitimate card. Fair and intelligent seem appropiate… but we haven’t seen what he really is up to and what his long term objectives are.
I think it is backfiring. In fact, there was severe opposition among the Shiites to some of the clauses in the new constitution, but Sistani calmed that down and gave his people in the IGC the go-ahead to sign specifically as a show of unity against the terrorists. So the Shiite bombings of the last couple of weeks may have actually pushed the Shiites into signing the interim constitution.
I agree with Rashak that it’s mostly NOT al-Qaida in Iraq. The terrorists operating there seem to be a coalition of ex-regime dead-enders (ex Republican guards and other people tainted enough by what they did before that they have no future in Iraq), a whole bunch of foreign fighters attracted to the cause from Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran, and the remnants of Zarqawi’s Ansar al-Islam terrorist organization, which has loose ties to al-Qaida. Plus maybe a handful of Sunnis who don’t want to lose political power to the Shiites and want to stop the democratization of the country.
But I have to say, things are looking better in Iraq all the time. The Kurds were a big worry early on, but they seem quite committed to a new Iraq. In fact, the two Kurdish leaders on the governing council said at the signing ceremony that this was the first time the Kurds had EVER felt like they were Iraqis first.
The real key to stabilization in Iraq will be to see to it that the Shiites don’t run roughshod over the Sunni and Kurdish minorities. Especially the Sunnis, who were in a position of power in the Hussein regime and could be facing reprisals. Then there’s the issue of the oil rich areas in Kurdish control - how is that going to work out? Here in Canada, we’ve got a similar situation where one province has the vast majority of oil resources. We share the wealth with the rest of the country (to the tune of $3,500 per Albertan per year shipped down east), but even so there is constant grumbling. Are the Kurds going to be willing to share their oil wealth with the rest of Iraq? If they don’t, will there be massive resentment against the Kurds?
So I’m actually surprised at the amount of unity being shown so far between the three groups. I chalk it up to several things - first, I think Iraqis have forged a national identity of shared suffering under Saddam. They also feel let down by their neighbors who did nothing to stop Saddam, and probably feel a bit isolated as a result. This is causing them to pull together a bit. And I think the terrorist attacks on Iraqi citizens are pushing them closer together as well. But that’s a double edged sword, because they are also pushing further away from the U.S. for not stopping the attacks.