This agreement solves that problem: it gives the Sunni leadership cover to agree to the Constitution, without flatly selling out the radicals in their midst.
If it works, genius. One - and only one Sunni party agreed to this "change." (The change itself violates the current law - procedurally speaking.)
Take off the polyanna glasses for a moment and use a little common sense: What in the world does the average Sunni get out of this deal? Nothing, except a vague promise their concerns will be taken into consideration later.
BFD.
Please explain why this "change" will molify the insurgency. At a minimum, please explain why this change will make the "constitution" more palatable to the average Sunni? |
| |
Written By:
mkultra
URL:
http://
|
MK-
As usual, you miss the freaking point entirely. The reason this should help mollify the average Sunni is that they get to vote on it. They don’t have Saddam in charge. They are free to make decisions. They are free to vote. They are free to move out of the country if they don’t like it. They are free.
And, as for your what-does-the-average-Sunni-get-from-this question, what does the average Democrat (minority party) get from compromises with Republicans? It’s politics, big guy.
PS - Love the "scare quotes" around the word constitution. |
| |
Written By:
A fine scotch
URL:
http://
|
As usual, you miss the freaking point entirely. The reason this should help mollify the average Sunni is that they get to vote on it. They don’t have Saddam in charge. This is perhaps the dumbest comment on the change that I have read so far.
Before the change the average Sunni could vote on the constitution. After the change the average Sunni could vote on the constitution.
Nothing changed, in other words.
As usual, you make no sense at all.
|
| |
Written By:
mkultra
URL:
http://
|
Please explain why this "change" will molify the insurgency. Will anything short of a return to absolute power for the minority "molify" the insurgency? |
| |
Written By:
JWG
URL:
http://
|
You don’t mollify insurgents, you kill them. You attempt to win over the civilian population; that’s who both sides are vying for in an insurgency/counterinsurgency. Or should be anyway, because they are the key to victory.
You don’t work to appease insurgents for the same reason you don’t negotiate with terrorists. By doing so you legitimize them and their methods, rewarding their use of force. |
| |
Written By:
J
URL:
http://
|
MK-
It’s called bartering in politics. It’s something that people in FREE societies can do. The Iraqis (Sunnis, Shia, Kurds, etc.) could not do with Saddam in power.
I don’t know what "change" you’re referring to (and after having re-read your first comment several times, I’m not sure you do either). I never referred to a "change." You’re the only one here talking about a change. Please take your aripiprazole and/or olanzapine and let me know when you’re done arguing with yourself. |
| |
Written By:
A fine scotch
URL:
http://
|
|
Kicking problems down the road has a time-honored history. Let us not forget that our own forefathers kicked the question of slavery down the road in 1776 and again in 1787 (not to mention Crittenden, Missouri, etc.). It took us almost 90 years to address that particular wound, and when we did so, it was with the bloodiest war in our history.
I say this not to necessarily suggest that Iraq is doomed to civil war, or to suggest that it is good to kick things down the road, but because it is important to remember that as soon as you gather any group of people together there will be certain irreconcilable differences between them. Even in the United States, where we had the advantages of similiar culture and shared experiences, we had to wrestle with the question of slavery for a century before we were able to resolve it, and some of slavery’s legacies remain with us even today. To suggest that somehow we can expect the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds to come to a conclusion that will be satisfactory for all of them (or necessarily any of them) with their initial Constitution is flying in the face of all human experience.
Approval of the Iraqi constitution will not be the end of the process. It will only be the beginning of a different process, and hopefully one where battles are fought in voting booths rather than on the battlefield. We have been fortunate enough only to see a very limited number of issues in American history flare into violence. Iraqi history is likely to be similar: they will be able to resolve most of their issues through the political process, but it will require time and negotiation to get there. And it is far from certain that there will not be some issues that are simply too contentious to be solved by any other manner but the sword. |
| |
Written By:
Andrew
URL:
http://andrewolmsted.com
|
|
Gloomy Gus aka MK Ultra has doomed this agreement before it’s been tried out. If it gets more Sunnis to the booth that believe this democracy thing might work, it’s a good deal. The announcement sounded like the Iraqis, including some Sunnis thought it was a good deal, I’ll defer to them. No deal is going to get 100% support, so what? |
| |
Written By:
Abu Qa’ Qa
URL:
http://
|
