The boys of 2005 (and their American sponsors), on the other hand, are just pygmies pretending to be giants. And the Iraqi people are going to be footing the bill for those pretensions — in blood — for a long time to come.
Back to Main
August 29, 2005
WB: The Philadelphia Experiment
Comments
Billmon (and Digby) make me feel like the boy in the Far Side cartoon, raising his hand in class and saying “May I be excused, my brain is full.”
This is a good feeling after a diet of network news, which increasingly tastes like unsalted rice puffs.
Posted by: MaryCh | Aug 29 2005 6:08 utc | 1
I can’t help *not* being interested in the minutiae of Iraq, sort of like knowing the end of an Agatha Christie book and not caring about the minutiae of Poirot’s investigation. We know where this is going, don’t we?
Posted by: Lupin | Aug 29 2005 6:57 utc | 2
I’m absolutely captivated, addicted, reading every page, sneaking peaks during the day. This is gripping.
Posted by: PeeDee | Aug 29 2005 9:25 utc | 3
Meanwhile, across the blue, and in other news you’ll never hear about :
Police chief- Lockerbie evidence was faked
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 29 2005 11:12 utc | 4
Interesting Uncle$cam. I immediately thought of the late Joe Vialls (whoever he was).
Posted by: DM | Aug 29 2005 11:49 utc | 5
Thanks for your brilliant commentary as always, Billmon! I was wondering, has anyone actually read the whole Iraqi constitution, or are we all just speculating at the moment? If not, is there any indication of when the document might become public?
Posted by: Drago | Aug 29 2005 11:50 utc | 6
Billmon: “Such a region would be a part of a “federal” Iraq in the same way that Russia was a part of a “federal” Soviet Union. It would dominate everything and everyone — including, eventually, even the Kurds, which is why I’m surprised the Kurdish leaders signed off on it. If the Shi’a parties, or their Iranian backers, ever decide that Kurdish autonomy is no longer in their interests, who do the Kurds expect to protect them? The United States? If so, they need to brush up on their own history.”
My take:
1) I expect it was a quid pro quo – the Sunnis would let the Kurds out, if the Kurds returned the favor.
2) The Shi’a won’t be able to come after the Kurds until they’ve tamed the Sunnis, which will take awhile.
By the time they do so, the Kurds figure they will have won the battle of Kirkuk, whose oil revenues will assure them of economic self-sufficiency and enable them to buy modern weaponry which will help them hold off the Shi’ite armies. (The Shi’a-Sunni war should help them win the Kirkuk battle – the Sunnis can’t possibly fight a two-front war.)
By the time the Shi’ites have ‘pacified’ Sunni Iraq sufficiently to go after the Kurds, the Kurds will be ready for them.
That is, unless Iran (or even Turkey) is willing to invade as well. But the Kurds probably expect us to keep a residual force in those ‘enduring bases’ with sufficient air power to frustrate the possibility of foreign invasion. So do I, at least as long as Bush remains in office.
Posted by: RT | Aug 29 2005 13:40 utc | 7
Never mind my comment above. I see the full text is now on the NYT website. Did anyone notice Billmon’s mention in The Independent? It’s here. Seems like someone read “Down the River” and took notice!
Posted by: Drago | Aug 29 2005 15:16 utc | 8
US Sniper Kills Reuters Soundman In Iraq This makes how many journalists that have been killed in Iraq since the US invasion?
According to reporters w/out borders
66 so far. More than in Vietnam…
US journalists: next? Helen Thomas, watch your back.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 29 2005 18:29 utc | 9
By the way, do you know Zalmay Khalilzad?
http://emperors-clothes.com/archive/khalilzad-facts.htm
Posted by: curious | Aug 29 2005 19:26 utc | 10
In order for a comparison of Baghdad 2005 with Philadelphia 1787 to be apt, a couple of facts have to be changed. Imagine what would have happened if:
1) As a result of the Revolutionary War, the slave owners who had been running things from Maryland to Georgia were now the political minority, with no real impact on the drafting or ratification (Cf. Sunnis in Iraq);
2) The slaves, newly freed and fully armed, were represented in proportion to their numbers (Cf. Shiites in southern Iraq);
3) The former slaves had formed militias and were effectively in control of several southern states; and
4) The timetable for drafting and adopting the constitution, as well as some of the key terms, were dictated by the French government, whose troops occupied Philadelphia.
Posted by: James E. Powell | Aug 29 2005 19:29 utc | 11
The apt smackdown by Billmon of the attempts to make the Iraqi Constitution process look like our own Constitutional Convention lacks one other crucial piece: lack of outside influences.
Our Constitution was written by Americans for Americans. And it was after we’d already gone through the growing pains of the Articles of Confederation. The French weren’t sitting over our shoulders telling us what to do. Europe had a vested interest in the failure of our experiment. We overcame on our own.
We WANTED it to work. After the failure of the Articles we were forced to come together to make it work and we knew it. The whole country knew it. They also knew if we didn’t sort it out we’d be vulnerable to invasion from the European nations waiting to pick the meat off our bones.
That’s why it worked.
Iraq has no such motivation. A large faction of their country doesn’t want it to work.
Some quibbbles.
The native Americans were not comparable to the Kurds. Native Americans are a post European take over catagory that hegemonizes the actual identities of the various peoples living on the continent prior to the European arrival by sailing ship. Kurds are an group defined by its culture as a group distinct from the groups around it. The point that there were people excluded from participation as unequal is of course correct, but it is a persistent mistake to project back today’s moral stance on that day’s wrongs.
And. There has been no thought behind this process from the beginning, anymore than Aguire, Wrath of God, is a movie about a thought process. The Iraq adventure is the story of an ad hoc group of fuck ups who belonged to the same odd gang, who ended up with power, and one after the other are playing out their fantasies, imbalanced and unchecked by the non executive branches of federal government and the “opposition” political party, so, they were/are free to act on their insane delusions.
Posted by: razor | Aug 30 2005 3:26 utc | 13
I realise the ‘federalist’ issue is important. But, there are various ways of embodiying federalism – its very nature require negotiations – and it would seem (to me anyway) not impossible for the Iraqis to elaborate a scheme suitable to all.
What is shocking, strange, and frightnening are the “Islamist” provisions of the Constitution, and its close resemblance to the Afghani one. (Care of Zalmay K. one supposes.) These provisions will have dire and far reaching and long lasting consequences, and will be extremely negative for Iraq. I know that mullahs are capable of anything to push forward their agenda, but this aspect of the Constitution surprises me – I don’t see it fitting with my view of Iraq, Iraqis, nor, for that matter, their two previous Constitutions. (Nor, btw, with booted Bremer’s laws and edicts.)
One might say my view has been formed through contact with educated Iraqis, reading the Western Press, etc. However, I am dismayed at what I perceive as the general Western acceptance of the fact that “Iraqis want an Islamic Constitution”, as if that was “just natural.” It is not. Imho.
(Uncle Scam, I was going to post that – Lockerbie)
Posted by: Noisette | Aug 30 2005 7:30 utc | 14
We WANTED it to work. After the failure of the Articles we were forced to come together to make it work and we knew it. The whole country knew it.
Don’t forget that there was a bitter debate over ratification of the Constitution. There was general agreement that the country needed a stronger national government, but a good deal of disagreement over what kind of stronger government.
What I’ve always found remarkable is the way Americans united to support the new Constitution once the ratification battle was over. There was no embittered and resentful minority living in a state of permanent opposition to the new form of government. The new Iraqi constitution–and the way it was drawn up–virtually guarantees permanent opposition.
Posted by: Angry Blue Planet | Aug 30 2005 16:39 utc | 15
From a usually “centrist-to-right”-ish reader, I wanted to let you know that I found this piece fascinating — a truly engaging read. Whether or not we agree overall on the issues regarding Iraq, I admire this deconstruction (no pun intended) all the same.
I am not a huge fan of the lack of civility suggested by insults/references such as “Shrub,” but having read some of the comments following OTHER columns at moonofalabama — I found most of the comments here equally insightful — I suppose you know your audience.
Look forward to reading more.
Posted by: Seth | Aug 31 2005 17:28 utc | 16