More on the Iraqi Constitution

On the same day that David Brooks lauds the Iraqi Constitution as what is just right for Iraqis, the Iraqis themselves announce that they have not been able to agree on the terms.

The sticking point, as I suggested in my previous post, is not primarily the idea of Islam's role in a democratic state. It is federalism. The Sunni want a strong central government for two reasons. First, they led a strong central government for many years. Second, they are worried that without such a government, they will be the poorest and least powerful of three basically autonomous regions. The Shia and the Kurds, conversely, would like nothing more than to become autonomous regions if not fully independent.

The problem, as I explained before, is that it is not yet clear to the different parts of Iraq why there should be a single country called Iraq. It is clear to the Bush Administration, of course, but it's the Iraqi's constitution, not the Bush Administration's, and without a strong reason to unite, different incentives among the various groups in Iraq will prevent agreement.

The Bush Administration may ultimately decide to bully its way through (as it has so often in its foreign policy), by aligning itself with the Shia and Kurds and bringing forward a blueprint for a very loose confederation for popular approval. The problem, of course, is that this will only further alienate the Sunnis, who are already paranoid that their interests will be disregarded by the other two groups which form a majority in the country. If enough Sunni's feel this way, and if they feel that the Americans occupying the country are forming a conspiracy with the Shia and Kurds against them, this will only add support to the insurgency.

We may get a constitution, if cooler heads prevail, and all three groups decide that they need each other. Or we may get civil war.