Has anybody else noticed the people complaining the Iraqi constitutional process is being rushed along too fast are the same people who 1 year ago were complaining the elections were being delayed too long?

In my opinion, the threats & warnings of impending civil war over the constitution are just the Iraqi version of brinksmanship. The Sunnis have the most to loose in a civil war. Although they have lost the power & influence they had under Saddam, the only way they will keep what little power they have now is by staying inside the constitutional process. The Sunni tribal leaders know they gave up alot of influence when they boycotted the elections. They won't make that mistake twice. In the end, the constitution will pass.

I don't see why Sunnis wouldn't rationally fear that the Kurds and Shias will use whatever political power they acquire to oppress them, whether legally or through other mechanisms. Laws aren't the only thing that make government do and not do things; who is in power is often more important. The tradition of respect westerners have for the outcomes of elections is a learned behavior, largely anathema to the third world.

Roach,

That's what I'm getting at: how quickly will the Sunnis climb that learning curve of respecting elections?

And I think you are right that they fear domination at the hands of the formerly oppressed. Someone, Powerline, I think, described the political process in Iraq as a series of steps that increasingly build faith among all the parties. I think this is a good way of viewing the situation.

I think the Sunni fear stems from 2 things. Firstly, the Arab understanding of democracy is, "My tribe gets everything now". It will take alot of time to shift that kind of thinking. The 2nd source of fear is the Arab sense of honor & shame. The Sunnis are used to being the superior group and held their heads high. This gave them a sense of honor. They have lost that prestige and have suffered wounded pride or shame. They will vote against the constitution to preserve their honor, but they will accept it as inevitable.

I think democracy will in fact mean my tribe gets everything in Iraq. So the Sunni response is rational. They have nothing to learn, other than that resistance will lead to more of them getting crushed than passive acquiesence. That will take rivers of blood to be taught.

Let's hope it won't mean that. The Shi'ites and Kurds have been more than gracious in naming Sunnis in the government. And they seem to be ok with splitting oil revenue, at least from existing wells, which is how the constitution reads.

But things could always go south.

Nevertheless, I'm optimistic.

"...the idea that if one party does not win, it always has a chance the next time around."

Exactly what the president was trying to explain to that seething press room about a year ago when the lovely David Gregory badgered him with "What if you don't like the elected gov't?"

The president's explanation of democracy was far too simple, direct, and honest. Gregory hated it, tho a certain rough-spoken A. Lincoln would've liked it very much! ;-)

that article from the am thinker was a very good pick up. way to go chester!!!
it brought a lot of things to mind;
what about the thousands of "palestinians" that have been shamelessly ignored for years by the MSM living in countries other than Israel?!!
did we start ME history over once the liberation of Iraq started?!!
I guess one could argue that things are different now due tothe US changing into democratization mode..
A hippy asked me if it was ok to impose democracy, I asked him where it hasnt been imposed? really..
and lastly, arent the Iranian shia persian and the Iraqi shia arabs? what dif does that make.

I know CHESTER didnt write the article, but I really thank him (you) for reprinting it. I wouldve missed it otherwise.

And to think that one of my best high school buddies and also one of my most annoying cloying liberals friend to boot both grad'd from JH's!!
they probably didnt want to take his class because they thought that arabs didnt matter.
SURPRISE!!

The Sunnis have no real reason to be afraid of not ratifying the constitution. If they do ratify, it signifies a decsive shift in power to Shiites and Kurds, two groups the Sunnis have always considered subjects, not equals. If they do not ratify, what do they have to be afraid of? All that happens is that new elections have to be held - which gives them a chance to get a bigger say in drafting the next constitution, at least. As long as the US is in Iraq the Sunnis can hide behind our self-imposed rules. The US will not hold the entire Sunni community responsible for acts of terrorism nor allow anyone else to do so.

My guess is they will not ratify and try their best to sink this constitution.

Battle,

That's my guess too, but I think the numbers aren't on their side.

A couple of small points.

First, LTG Pataeus, having just having finished a stint as head of the Transition Command in Iraq, predicted yesterday that the the constitution would pass.

Second, the "droves" in which the Sunnis are allegedly registering is turning up all over. Condi Rice said it on Friday afternoon during her speech at Princeton, and the WaPo used the identical phrase in a recently headline. I'm wondering if the "droves" imagery doesn't come from, er, Rove. (Heh. But it still sounds like a talking point.)

The reason why the Sunnis are boycotting the Constitution is because they boycotted the election and therefore didn't get enough seats proportional to their population. So that means their power in the Constitutional writing is low low low.

So if the Constitution fails to get ratified, and there are NEW elections, that can only benefit theSunnis politically, as the Americans have pacified much of central Iraq. The Suuni Triangle is a bit skewed to the west and north now.

The politics are a lot easier to grasp for Americans than the military vs guerrila insurgency aspects. That is, if the politics were reported faithfully as opposed to blind as a donkey and dumb as a bat, vindictive as a rattler, and so on.

The sunnis have no choice. AL-Qaeda has turned on the Sunnis, and the Sunnis now want revenge against Al-Qaeda for killing their family. You know the old middle eastern vendetta stuff going on. Very useful to us.

It is hilarious how the idiots prancing as experts were talking about how Americans were killing civilians and that this meant we were garnering the hate of the Shiites and Sunnis, when the truth is that it is the OPPOSITE. Complete opposite.

THere you go, propaganda permeating throughout the WoT.

One of the reasons Bush named it the WoT is because Bush prefers a world in which there is no terror. I prefer a world in which bad guys are scared to death of us, and we aren't scared of them. If we have to get the Iraqis to be the bad cop, I'd say that it was finally going to be done, fighting terror with terror. Propaganda with propaganda.

Excellent observations, Tigerhawk. Thanks for stopping by.

I think too much is being made of religious/cultural divisions ie. Sunni, Shia, Kurd. The truth is that there is much intermarriage and there is an educated secular portion of the population. The Sunnis bought in to the political process, do not represent all Sunnis, but the interests of various political groups and tribes. They dont speak for all. To slice the population up into neat little cliques is just too simplistic. A civil war is very unlikely as the Sunni groups opposed to the constitution are a small minority, dont represent all Sunnis and would be overwhelmingly crushed. This has not ocurred yet, despite incredible brutality on the part of 'Insurgents' toward the Shia. They simply have no choice but to go with the flow regardless of the outcome.

The point is that there are a wide variety of opinions amongst many different religious and cultural elements that dont neatly break down into large divisions such as Sunni v. Shia making an across the board conflagration highly unlikely. Smaller brush fires maybe, retribution against Baathists likely, but not all out civil war.

Technically, there is a Civil War being fought in Iraq right now. The traditional definition of Civil war is two or more indigenous groups warring for control of a nation. Isn't that what is happening in Iraq?
Just because the level of violance is below some arbitrary point doesn't mean there is no civil war ongoing in Iraq. This is a case of the administration spinning the facts in hope of having their spin come true. Just like the denial that there is a guerrilla war going on there also. My favorite example is Yugosolvia during the 40's. Tito was fighting the Germans and the Soviet sponsored guerrilla groups at the same time. IIRC there were Serb nationalists in the mix also.
One of the big problems in Iraq is that there are so many dogs in the fight. Plus NOBODY will pick a side and stay there. Welcome to the Middle East.
We should give the whole thing to the Turks in exchange for 50% of the OIL production for the next 99 years. The Turks are good at dealing with terrorists. The Armianians havn't bothered anyone for almost a century now.
Re-establish the Ottoman Empire, undo the mistake the Brits and France made in 1919.

The Armenians were mercilously slaughtered. I hope you arent rooting for that sort of genocide.

As for indigenous groups warring for control, you will have to add non indigenous groups fanning the fire. Also while the skirmishes between groups get most of the press, the much greater majority will be using the political process. The unrest supported by some Sunnis is mearly a means of getting leverage to increase their piece of the political pie. Of course AQ and former Baathists have their own agenda.

Stehpinkeln - The head of the Ottoman empire was head of the Caliphate. You're essentially advocating that we give Al Queda its major war aim at this point. Did you think before you wrote?