"See, I told you so" Won't Cut it

The latest argument du jour on Iraq is about its Constitution. Specifically, the Sunni minority obstacle to ratifying the Constitution drafted by Iraqi leaders.

On the surface the temptation to claim that this is yet more proof about Dubya's incompetence is too great to ignore. However, as is usually the case, beneath the surface lies some practical reasons for this. First, what did people expect? The left will rationalize this by musing that this was an obvious stumbling block. But this was obvious to anybody who understands Iraqi politics and history.

The Sunni's, as a minority, formed the power base in Iraq under a heinous Hussein regime. Their resistance to the Constitution has more to do with survival and preservation of power (which they have none in disproportionate numbers as before). In any event, the way the anti-Bushites have been debating all along, we were not even supposed to be at this stage according to them anyhow. So why should we even bother to engage them?

At its most basic level, the Sunni's are bargaining. This is not surprising. What we need to recognize is that the Sunni's, as well as the Shia's and Kurds, will have to learn to compromise. That's what the premise of Federalism rests upon. Garibaldi, for example, had to give up Piemonte and Savoia in exchange for French help in the unification of Italy.

We all know seeking unanimous agreements in life are rare. To prey upon what is a normal impasse on the path to laying roots of responsible governance for short sighted petty politics is not only misguided but a wanton disregard of our own rocky path to democracy in Western culture. Democracy only found its true voice after TWO major World Wars. Between the periods of 1648 (when the Treaty of Westphalia was signed) and 1914 when the arrival of the First World Way effectively destroyed balance of power politics (AKA realpolitik), the West was anything but free and democratic.

Once the Revolutions in the United States and France* came around the idea of liberty as a practical function enshrined in a document began to take root. This found its ultimate expression in one of the most enlightened documents in world history - The U.S. Constitution. Drafted by men of remarkable fortitude and insight - not to mention genius - the early framers were far from united in their visions. It took a series of debates and compromises to arrive at the final print. Even then, it was not unanimous.

The same can be said for Canada. Though less romantic and earth shattering, the Canadian BNA Act was also written by learned men who had to compromise. In fact, Canada is one gigantic compromise.

The Constitution in itself was not enough. The institutions that supported such daring notions of equality and freedom were not strong enough. Piracy and illegal activity were still the norm. Eventually, society came into its own and accepted the principle of rule of law to which democracy rests.

The odds against Iraq are greater in that it took a foreign power, still uncomfortable in its empire role, to topple its dictator in an ancient and fragmented land. This was made worse by the public relations nightmare, for this gamble was enormously unpopular not only among some Arabs, but among the traditional allies and democracies of the West. As if this was not enough, it was magnified by a vocal anti-war and anti-Bush movement, in their own version of fanaticism, that when all is said and done, are damaging Iraqi's more than they are George W. Bush.

Though daunting, it's far from impossible, too. Iraq was, much like Afghanistan, an advanced, literate and functioning Arab country prior to Saddam Hussein. It has been at the forefront, along with Egypt, of Arab culture and civilization. It is not a hopeless case nor is this a Vietnam scenario. The dynamics are completely different and should not even be a point of debate. Adopting dubious, complex and confusing angles about the opium trade, oil pipelines and other issues in an effort to try and solidify anti-Americanism and attack Bush is irrelevant to the larger picture.

We should not underestimate the will of Iraqis and Afghanis, as they seek to take advantage of an opportunity - no matter how it came about - accorded to them. We should, after all, be reminded that the path to a civil society was not all that different for us.

*There is an irony to be found here. Conservatives disapproved of both the American and French revolutions. Yet, it is a branch of conservatism (neo-conservatism) that is launching a revolution abroad. Conservatives are supposed to be for small government; not bigger government. Right?