Iraq partition watch

My earlier pessimistic outlook on Iraq's future still seems mostly applicable. The new wrinkle is that things are so bad there that the southern provinces are considering secession:

Iraq's oil-rich southern provinces are considering plans to set up an autonomous region - a move that reflects their growing frustration with the central government in Baghdad and could pose a threat to the unity of the country.

Members of the municipal council of Basra, Iraq's second largest city, have been holding talks with officials from councils in two neighbouring provinces on establishing a federal region in the south, following the example of the Kurdish north.

The three provinces - Basra, Missan and Dhiqar - account for more than 80 per cent of the proved oil reserves of the country's 18 provinces and provide a large share of the national income.

The talks are a political challenge to the embattled interim Iraqi government which is fighting a fierce insurgency in Sunni Arab areas, continued unrest in an impoverished Shia suburb of Baghdad and militant gangs bent on disrupting the country's reconstruction.

Diplomats familiar with the talks, recently reported by Iraqi media, say the three provinces have felt marginalised in new government institutions, including the consultative assembly that advises the government. They believe they are not receiving a fair share of economic resources.

The cabinet led by Iyad Allawi, the prime minister, includes only one representative from the three provinces.

It's likely that Iran is also encouraging the secessionist movement, as the article notes further down. There also is surely impetus for this due to the special dispensation given the Kurdish region, whose extra autonomy was hard-coded into the transitional constitution and will likely remain. The Shi'a of the south have a right to ask, if the Kurds can be essentially independent, why can't we?

There will definitely be feedback between the southern secession and the northern secession, as each feels emboldened by teh other's claims. Turkey is desperate to avoid a free Kurdistan, for fear of their own Kurdish minority attempting to breakaway and join (and like Bill Allison, I confess to great sympathy for the Kurds' desire for a state of their own. They certainly have composed themselves with Polish-levels of honor under brutal sufferring and oppression, in marked contrast to the Palestinians).

Turkey therefore has an interest in seeing the southern part of Iraq also remain part of a unified Iraq; were the south to break free, the reduced viability of the remaining Iraq would make the Kurdish breakaway all that more likely.

Iran has an interest in seeing the south secede, because they want to play the same proxy-state game that they have seen the colonial powers of Britain and America play in the previous century. The Iranian theocratic regime likely sees a free Shi'a state as a nagtural ally, but I wonder if they are overestimating the Shi'a populace's willingness to submit to Sadr's brand of theocratic rule (witness the large demonstrations in Najaf and Sistani's influence).

Ultimately, the Sunni center is the one that concerns American national security the most, because that's the most fertile ground for Al Qaeda. It's hard not to see some merit i the idea of partition, therefore - we'd have Kurdistan in the north, likely to be an ally. We'd have a stable Shi'a state in the south, which would pose some risk of collusion with Iran but also might be a better influence on Iran than we realize. And the Sunni center could be contained more effectively by concentrating there our limited troop resources, allowing for more probability of success in building a stable, democratic state.

But thats the rosy view, one which neocons might embrace, but which more honest appraisers have to concede may be far messier in reality. Just a reminder from history - when India was partitioned, the median of the death toll estimates is 500,000 people. Careful planning and a wiser hand at the helm of US foreign policy is required if Iraq partition becomes inevitable.

Ultimately, if the Shi'a state secedes and becomes democratic, it may well align itself with Iran. A true commitment to freedom means that we have to support democratization regardless of that risk, rather than try to install a puppet regime (as the Bush administration does, cloaking its essentially realpolitik approach with a veneer of freedom rhetoric).

UPDATE: tragedy beyond belief:

BAGHDAD, Sept. 30 -- Separate bomb blasts across Iraq Thursday killed more than 40 people, most of them children, in a dramatic escalation of the country's violent insurgency that also injured hundreds of Iraqis and numerous American troops.

The most lethal attack appeared to be directed at a government-sponsored ceremony marking the reopening of a water treatment plant in the Baghdad neighborhood of Bayaa. But among the victims were at least 34 children, who had gathered excitedly in anticipation of candy and cake being handed out by U.S. troops, according to people on the scene.

The Iraqi civil war has already begun.

The Debate debate

A good friend forwarded me this review of the new book, "No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates" by George Farah:

The central point of George Farah�s book is that since 1988 they�ve
been aided and abetted in this by the Commission on Presidential
Debates, which he considers a front for the two major parties and thus
something of a fraud. His argument is that the CPD is really a
bipartisan group, not a nonpartisan one, intent on preserving the
two-party structure and working hard to deny third-party candidates a
forum. In the process, he suggests, it has been able, in �secret� and
�covert� ways, to turn control of the debates over to the major parties
because the media collectively have either been asleep at the switch or
quietly applauding the effort.
[...]
He approaches the issue from many
different vantage points, all of them ending with the same conclusion �
that the commission has hijacked the debates from the public and turned
them over to the major parties, allowing the candidates to set most of
the rules. Most importantly, it has managed � with the exception of
Ross Perot in 1996 � to exclude third-party candidates completely.

I think this is a red herring. The fact that Perot was included in 1992 essentially disproves the conspiratorial accusation - clearly, if a candidate like Perot can break the third-party glass ceiling and pose a real threat of winning (and Nader never came close in 2000 to Perot's success), then the debate commission is forced to respond.

The third party candidates argue that debate access is a chance to air their opinion. But that's not how they would use that access - they would use it instead to try and paint both candidates as the same, and argue that only they themselves are a real choice. Thats exactly the strategem Nader employed in 2000 and the result was that a critical number of people actually believed him - and voted for Bush thinking that Gore would be no different.

Millions of lost jobs, an assault on our civil liberties, one just war left half-fought, one completely spurious war successfully won and then completely mismanaged, spurning of our allies when we most need their cooperation, a grotesque inflation of Medicare, a labyrinthine assault on the public school system, rampant Wall Street corruption, and the biggest intelligence failure of all time later... these guys still think they are doing a service for democracy?

More bluntly - lying for personal political gain about your opponents - in this case, arguing that the Two Big Guys are the Same Thing when they are clearly NOT - is not okay just because you're the underdog. so stop wrapping yourself in the flag as you do it. And if you want to build your third party, do it the old-fashioned way: at teh state and local level, one race at a time. Doing so requires the courage of your convictions rather than desperate envy of the Big Boys' media time.

The book does have make a point I agree with strongly, that the current debates, controlled by the political parties as they are, seek to shield the candidates from the voters. The review continues:

Farah is the executive director of an organization called Open
Debates, which wants to wrest control of the debates away from the
current sponsors and replace them with a new organization called the
Citizens Debate Commission.
[...]
Their goal is not just to open up the debates to serious minority
party candidates, but to turn them into real debates. The current
format, with no direct candidate-to-candidate questioning, with limited
follow-up questioning, with limited rebuttals, and with limited
response times, has resulted less in real debates than in what have
been described as �nationally televised joint appearances.�
[...]
The Commission on Presidential Debates was created in 1987 by Frank J.
Fahrenkopf Jr., then the head of the Republican National Committee, and
Paul G. Kirk Jr., then the head of the Democratic National Committee,
who remain the co-chairs. The stated goal was to ensure that
presidential debates would continue to be a part of every general
election. The unstated goal was to take control away from the League of
Women Voters, which had organized and managed the debates in 1976,
1980, and 1984. The major parties had become annoyed at the league
because it had pushed the candidates into debate formats that they had
resisted, had insisted on including John Anderson in a 1980 debate, and
had tried to subject the candidates to questioning by reporters the
candidates didn�t want asking the questions.

Now, I would love to see a real Lincoln-Douglas style debate (archived for posterity), one that lasts three hours instead of 90 minutes. But there's an element of pragmatism here - obviously the parties have a vested interest in avoiding that. But you have to acknowledge that the debate commission at present is not as docile as you'd think - they recently refused to sign the Bush campaign's demanded agreement for the unprecedented measures they want to shield Bush. The commission may be over-protective, but it's NOT meek, and it does take its duty seriously.

Further, I think they are going about it all wrong. Why not launch the Citizen's commission themselves and invite the candidates? (answer: because only the indies would show up, and it would descend into farce). Like it or not, you have to exclude the third-parties, and then just try to build a coalition of interests so compelling that the candidates don't dare say no.

This year, the crowds at Bush's campaign stops have been pre-screened and required to sign loyalty oaths. Its telling that Bush wants to avoid the "town hall" debate. Bring it on!! This isnt the year to care about third parties' debate access, its about convincing people that Bush is the worst president in american history (with the possible exception of McKinley).

A more relevant book to read right now is the meticulously-researched "When Presidents Lie" by Eric Alterman. The chapter on FDR's lie about Yalta is illuminating indeed...

a political war

What is better, a leader who never admits he's wrong or one who can recognize a mistake and change ocurse to adapt? Bush's campaign would have you believe the latter is a "flip flopper." The former, however, borders on insanity.

Note that the link is being touted by others in the liberal blogsphere for Bush's astonishing statement that he'd dress up in a flght suit and prance on an aircraft carrier and say "mission accomplished" all over again. Forget about the technical truth of the statement (though all must admit that the invasion of Iraq, unlike the subsequent occupation, was a masterful affair).

What struck me far more than that however was this statement by Bush on Falluja:

But Bush said he also did not regret the decision to withdraw U.S. forces from the rebel stronghold of Falluja earlier this year because he believed the conflict there could have jeopardized the June handover of sovereignty to Iraqis.

"A lot of people on the ground there thought that if we'd have gone into Falluja at the time, the interim government would not have been established," Bush said.

Look, I'm no military expert, but I do know that Falluja is a mini-Taliban state at present. And Bush flip-flopped in the worst possible way - first ordering the invasion, the rescinding it, for purely political purposes (Kevin Drum nicely summarizes Bush's Plans A - D). That indescision, imposed upon our troops from above, surely gave the sunni fanatics there "Aid and Comfort". After being lectured on the evil of Clinton's Somalia moment for years by rabid Bush partisans, I should think that at least some iota of intellectual honesty would compel more widespread outrage. Sadly, no.

yes, a puppet

Glenn takes the Karry campaign to task for calling Iyad Allawi, installed Prime Minister of Iraq and former Baathist/Mukhabarat ally of Saddam Hussein, a puppet.

Judge for yourself. Allawi was interviewed by Jim Lehrer on PBS. Cue the transcript:

JIM LEHRER: What would you say to somebody in the United States who questions whether or not getting rid of Saddam Hussein was worth the cost of more than a thousand lives now and billions and billions of U.S. dollars?

PRIME MINISTER IYAD ALLAWI: Well, I assure you if Saddam was still there, terrorists will be hitting there again at Washington and New York, as they did in the murderous attack in September; they'll be hitting also on other places in Europe and the Middle East.

Clearly Allawi has no scruples about repeating a long-discredited lie (about Saddam's link to 9-11) in service of Bush-Cheney '04 re-election efforts (Cheney: vote for us or die). And he seem to have forgotten Beslan, Madrid, Bali...

but hey, he's our sonofabitch.

Meanwhile, back in reality, Gary Hart speaks.

Hey, he's never lost an election before

Why settle for the lesser evil (Allawi) when you can have the real thing?

Saddam to Declare Candidacy for Iraqi Elections

Overthrown Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, who was arrested by US forces last December, reportedly plans to run as a candidate in the Iraqi elections scheduled for January 2005.

Saddam's lawyer Giovanni di Stefano told Denmark's B.T. newspaper that Saddam decided during one of their discussions that he would declare his candidacy for the elections.

Stefano said that there was no law that prevented Saddam from appearing on the ballot. He added that Saddam hopes to regain his presidency and palaces via the democratic process.

Contrary to the statements of Iraqi Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, Stefano claims, "Saddam has no chance to be tried before the elections. Moreover, no international law prevents him from coming forward."

Saddam's lawyer defends that the ambiguity in Iraq will favor Saddam at the polls. Stefano remarked that a recent Gallup poll indicates that 42 percent of the Iraqi people want their former leader back.

Hey, Saddam was OUR sonafabitch long before Allawi was our sonofabitch. And Daniel Pipes, President Bush's official representative to the Muslim world, does think Iraq needs a strongman...

This whole war would have been a lot cheaper if we'd just given Saddam $100 billion.

Tertiary Phase broadcasts today!

I missed the broadcast on Tuesday but the first episode will be re-broadcast at 11:00 PM GMT, which is 5PM central time in the US. The episode will then be available for online streaming for seven days afterwards.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/newseries.shtml

interpreting intolerance

Shi'a Pundit illustrates the condescension of a secular fundamentalist, who dares lecture orthodox muslims on tolerance.