What guarantees do you have that Iraq will exist with the instability it has now?
Nice quote, but unless this election was a meaningless farce, we’re no longer talking about “the federal system of government envisioned by planners in the Bush administration.” The Kurds, Shi’ites, and Sunni Arabs will deal with each other - one way or another.
It’s clear that the Kurds want a lot more autonomy than Sistani wants them to have. (Sistani doesn’t want to be involved in the day-to-day running of government, but it’s clear that he has some strong views regarding what that government should be like, and expects those views to be adhered to. To Westernize it, he wants to be something like the chairman of the board, but not the CEO.) And while the words from assorted Shi’ites have been promising in terms of their willingness to negotiate with the Sunnis, there’s the question of whether the Sunni insurgents can be talked/pressured into real negotiations, either by the Shi’ites, or by the desires of the Sunni people of Iraq.
We can hope for a happy outcome, but hope is not a plan. We would have been much better served if we’d held these elections back in 2003, before the Sunni insurgency figured out just how strong it was. They’re strong enough - and the Iraqi security forces are weak enough - by the Pentagon’s own estimation (Warning: big PDF; see p. 25 as the pages are numbered in the text) so that the government will need the US to stick around, which will undermine the government’s legitimacy.
I’m going to agree with Elucidator to the extent that reasonable people can wonder about the perfect outcome of the election from the US point of view. I’ve not been too impressed with the level of democracy that the Bush administration grants to the US population on the issue of Iraq, let alone the levels of democracy that may or may not be experienced by your average Iraqi.
Its not like the Bush administration would have qualms about rigging the election (not that they necessarily did) to achieve an ideal outcome. If they did rig the election, they did a good job. Keeping the Shia at about 50% representation at least gives the minority groups a chance of getting a say in the proceedings. If the election was on the up and up, which it appears on its face to be, then the Bush administration is breathing a big sigh of relief over avoiding a constitional congress that would be all too likely to implement more of Sharia law than the US public would like to see.
The outcome is good, but the current administration has cried wolf (i.e. fibbed) a few too many times on the issue of Iraq for us not to think about whether they are being straightforward or to what extent.
Then, if the Shiite party forms a government with the Kurdish party, will you say that it would be a BAD thing?
Given your rose-colored glasses, I have yet to hear you admit that anything in Iraq is not turning out great. I’d just like to have you pin you down on something being a bad thing before you turn around and hail it as a great success.
(I can hear it now: Ryan Liam’s next post: “See, it’s great that the Shiites and the Kurds formed a government, because that means that they both believe in a united Iraq that can overcome ethnic differences!” :rolleyes: )
Well, except that it takes two thirds to create the Executive branch, which has veto power, and it takes 3/4ths to overcome any of the guarantees of the Transitional Government’s founding document (which reads a little like the EU’s constitution). So sure, 51% can do a little, but not very much and not for very long – the current Assembly is designed to be a temporary body whose main goal is the drafting of a Constitution. The Constitution is to be voted upon by the Iraqi people (with not only a majority required, but also a non-overwhelming rejection by minority governates) and the whole Assembly goes back up for election after ratification.
Erm no, I’m merely pointing out that the Shia giving concessions and making assurances is a good bet on democracy taking root, and not the Islamist theocracy everyones harping about.
Sunni participation? But thats because of intimidation and violence and being kicked out of power, and less because of the general boycott, and the electricity and security situation could do with a extreme marked improvement. There’s nothing rose coloured about my views on Iraq, things are bad, yes, but its not all bad, and its not a disaster either.
Did I say that? Jesus, I have a little optimism and faith in the people who are part of the process, and I get lamblasted for it, think what you want, I don’t care.
Because for the simple reason, all three ethnic groups within Iraq don’t want to be controlled, domineered and subjicated by outside forces anymore.
Give me a break, if that was the case, plenty of Sunni/Shiite towns in Iraq would be at each others throats, I don’t see this happening, and seems more likely to be the situation of a few extremists trying to stir up the ethnic divisions between them. Federalism hasn’t been off the table in the Iraqi government for the Kurdish minority.
Sunnis have alot to loose from fighting the Shias and not coming about in the process, so I believe in time they’ll build bridges and make amends, because its the only way for any of them to go forward.
Cite?
But isn’t the government undermined even without our forces? You know those Sunnis that aren’t represented :rolleyes:
Hey, I follow by example
Well, for the fact the Independent Iraqi Electoral commission counted the ballots, I’d very much say yes.
Besides, if this was the case, then why would the US government allow people to mention there were irregularities in Assyrian ballots?
OK, but once the Executive Branch is created by the appropriate parliamentary log-rolling, with a Shi’ite PM no doubt, the majority will still be able to pass legislation and get it signed.
Nonetheless, it will be in existence all year as the legislative branch, and a year is a long time in contemporary Iraqi politics. It’s been less than two years since we invaded, and it’s been a damned crowded two years.
When you yourself write the parts of the TAL you care about, it hardly matters that you can’t get the 3/4 majority to overturn it; it’s already the way you want it.
Well, if it ain’t Mr. Liar, BSing again. I’ve explained why 50.001% does matter - not in every situation, but it definitely will matter. Do you have a cite that says a majority can’t pass legislation? No, you don’t. Do you have a passable argument that legislation won’t matter? No, you don’t. But you stick around to blather more lies anyway. What a bore you’ve become, Manny.
Because? Look if you’re hoping that the Shia will implement some sort of theocracy over the rest of Iraq, you’re completely wrong, because you’re ignoring the fact that it needs over two thirds concensus
*Better be precise about what exactly needs 2/3 consensus and what doesn’t. Otherwise you’re just blowing smoke.
The Shi’ite party will be the dominant partner in forming a government; that’s a done deal. So they’ll likely get the prime-ministership. And with that and a legislative majority, they can pass a good bit of legislation.
Jesus you say the stupidest things. Earlier you said “When you yourself write the parts of the TAL you care about, it hardly matters that you can’t get the 3/4 majority to overturn it; it’s already the way you want it.” I agreed, and further opined that it also doesn’t matter if you had less than or more than 50% for purposes of changing the TAL. That is a correct statement. In fact, as long as you’ve got over 25% you can block any change to the document you had already influenced. See, for purposes of changing the TAL without partnering with other coalitions, there’s no difference between 26 and 74 percent. At 25 you can block on your own, from 26 to 74 you can block changes but only change it with other coalitions and in excess of 75 you can change it as long as you hold your own group together. How in the world can you not understand that?
So a Shiite Kurd alliance is the only game in town as far as changing the rules. Allawi and the miscellaneous groups don’t have 25% between them, so they’re largely irrelevant.
Here are a few extracts from the complete TAL:
That last bit might put a strain on Kurds. I find hard to see how they could be enticed to wait on the issue until the shiites assume total control.
