' I agree with much of what you wrote in your latest
article in Salon.com. However, I think that your
genuine good wishes for the iraqi people are
superceded by the selfish interest of different
groups in Iraq.
Here are a few selfish interests that will play big:
1) Shiites are probably the majority even in Baghdad,
or at minimum 50% of the Baghdad population
(especially with sadr city's 2 million shiites, and
other prominent shiite districts like Sha'ab, Shu'la,
Khadhimiya). Almost certainly Baghdad would NOT be
included in the shiite federation of the south as
envisioned by Al-Hakim and others because then the
concept of a federation really doesnt make much sense
when you pretty much include all the major cities
except for Anbar and provinces to the north. Shiites
in Baghdad will not want to be left to being a
minority in a "Sunni" federation, and
Sunnis in Baghdad will not want to be part of a
"shiite" federation. There is a strong
possibility then that most shiites in Baghdad would
vote AGAINST the constitution over the federalism
issue. That would most certainly seal the
constitution's fate when combined with votes from
Anbar, Sallahudin, and Mosul.
2) You and I might agree that SCIRI is under the
thumbs of the mullahs of Iran, but the bottom line is
that they do have huge influence in the south.
Ironically, in a way it is like the Christian
Coalition's over reaching power in US politics. Here
you have whackos like Pat Robertson who may not be
representative of American Christians in general, but
still has influence with the Bush administration.
Al-Hakim does NOT represent all shiites, but he does
have that kind of influence because he is very well
organized in terms of political, social, and security
services. While the Christian coalition does not have
a militia, they did exploit their superb
organizational skills to help bush win the last
election. For al-Hakim's supporters, there is no
compelling reason for them to give up their selfish
interests in the south. So, with regards to your
article, I would like to see what you would propose
as an incentive for Shiites like al-Hakim to
compromise?
3) Baathists....I am all for allowing former
Baathists who did not commit major crimes to work in
the new Iraqi government, but I think it is quite
unreasonable to be forced into letting the baathist
party re-establish itself. Baathism was brutal to
most Iraqis. For Saleh al-Mutlak to say that the
Baathist party is the "best party we ever
had" and expect people like me to be sympathetic
to him, he has another think coming. When it comes to
the Sunnis, they need to get over their feelings that
they should be ruling Iraq. In truth, I think most
Sunnis simply do not even respect Shiites or Kurds as
being worthy of leading iraq. The Sunni view is that
Shiites and Kurds did not achieve power independently
and are just holding on to the coat-tails of the
americans. Why should the Sunnis then take the
Shiites seriously. The Sunnis probably think that
when America leaves, they can re-assert themselves
and rule iraq once again. That is why they are
determined to maintain control over the whole of Iraq
through a strong central government. That central
government will be the vehicle by which they regain
their power over the whole of iraq once america is
gone. How do you propose to bring them back to
reality where they understand that they cannot rule
iraq while being less than 20% and not having tanks
and helicopters?
4) Iraqis like me are stuck between all these groups.
I am religous, but I don't want religion in the
constitution. I think federalism is ok as long as it
doesnt lead to the break up of Iraq . . . While my
wife does wear hijab, I don't want laws in place that
force her to. Baathists can go back to work, but I am
sickened by people who are heartless and carry the
picture of Saddam with pride and forget the suffering
he has caused to millions of people. Unfortunately,
people with my types of views tend never to be able
to hold the same level of influence as the al-Hakim
or Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars types. How do
you enable moderates to have a stronger say at the
table? '