Iraq Constitution vote. posted by Richard Seymour

Iraq is being shut down as voting begins. By all accounts, conditions are ripe for the constitution to be passed. It is backed in its present form not only by the SCIRI, but also by the Iraqi Islamic Party after a clause was added, making it possible to repeal federalist provisions. (It is worth noting that the IIP accepted a seat in L Paul Bremer's puppet government, so this will not be the first time they have alienated would-be supporters). Naturally, and to no one's genuine surprise, Sistani has urged a yes vote. Moqtada al-Sadr has voiced his opposition to the consitution, particularly the federalist aspects which will certainly strengthen the hand of his opponents in the SCIRI with their dreams of an Iran-style theocracy. He derives much of his support from Shiites in Baghdad's Sadr City, which contains almost 20% of Iraq's Shiite population, and which would be in the Sunni federal zone under the new constitution. He therefore has ideological, organisational and political reasons not to support it. However, he has said he will not insist that his supporters oppose it, indicating more or less that it is beyond his expertise as a cleric. Several Sunni organisations remain in opposition to the constitution, and key Sunni areas are eager to vote no. Overall, however, the bulk of Iraq's popular political forces are either supporting or acquiescing in the proposed constitution.

So, why are they so nervous? Why, for instance, the spectacle of Kurdish and Shiite parties trying to rig the constitution vote so that it would be harder to defeat? Then again, if support is so solid among Shiites, why have they been pushing so hard for Sunni support? And why do they debate amendments to the constitution, then decide it isn't "necessary" to have a vote on them? And are the Kurds so certain to back it as fully as they might have been expected to?

One has to assume that the SCIRI and its Badr Corps will be able to coerce and persuade people to vote for the constitution in its zones of hegemony, as it did before, and this should be sufficient, along with the IIP's backing, to see the constitution backed. I've made no bones about the fact that I consider it a disastrous move.

There is a real risk that a federal Iraq could degenerate into precisely the civil war that its supporters fear if, say, troops withdraw. Tom Lasseter reports that the new Iraqi army is permeated by anti-Sunni bigotry:

But day to day, the Iraqi officers mostly run their own show, carrying out most of the patrols and running checkpoints without help. Increasingly, however, they look and operate less like an Iraqi national army unit and more like a Shiite militia....
"When we are in charge of security the people will follow a law that says you will be sentenced to prison if you speak against the government, and for people like Saleh Mutlak [A Sunni leader] there will be execution," Zubaidi said....
"Even if you people, you Sunnis, roll tanks on our heads we will not give this country back to you," Mousawi said. "It's ours now...."

The likely reaction, as that army murders civilians would be an increasing reliance on Sunni militias, and among these would presumably be anti-Shia groups. Similarly, as Kurdish groups seek to expand their dominion and protect what autonomy they already have, there would be a heightening of fighting along ethnic lines in places like Kirkuk. The low-level war of attrition between Sadrists and Badrists would continue. And tensions over oil revenue allocations would present an ongoing source of ethnic rivalry. Ethnic cleansing, already afoot in parts of Iraq, may well become an even more widespread fixture of Iraqi political life, and may elevate beyond the sporadic and low-key moves now underway. Religious and ethnic sectarianism is being enshrined in and assured by this constitution.

Indeed, senior US officials are beginning to reach the same conclusion.

Meanwhile, a narrative is already being readied in Washington and Downing Street. Modern day insurgencies last nine years according to a senior US military official. Meanwhile, Jack Straw has said that Iraq will be unstable for ten years - and you know those troops are going nowhere until Iraq is nicely settled and tucked into bed. The reason given for this assessment is the fake Al Qaeda letter. It is nonsense, of course - 'insurgencies' last as long as the cause persists and those fighting them have the werewithal to continue. This announcement boils down to an insistence that Iraq will be forced to accept the occupation for as long as it lasts, and anyone who doesn't like it can have their cities bombed.

The occupiers, in summary, are rushing through a simulacral vote on a barely read constitution, drafted in private by the US Embassy and competing Iraqi political leaders, in order to legitimise their ongoing occupation. Having, they hope, obtained that Magic Purple Finger Moment, they will then receive a whirlwind of civil strife that will be presented as another retroactive justification for 'staying the course'. It is not that the occupiers will win. They know they have already lost Iraq, and they will never regain it. It is that they will not be seen to be defeated, and Iraqis will suffer as a frightful object lesson in what happens to those who resist an empire that is already in its death throes. Mountbatten chuckles icily from his grave.