One wonders if brutality would be enough.

Bithead:

Alas, revolutions succeed only when the regime as a whole has lost so much faith in itself that it cannot raise the brutality necessary to keep itself in power.

(Example -- the first Iranian revolution.)

Well put, AM, and that's why I ask the question. Given the attempts at striking up a dialouge with 'The Great satan', I guess I'm wondering if that isn't their state of mind...

s/Iranian government/Bush regime and s/"reformers"/Democrats and you've got a not unreasonable future lede for the domestic situation.

Unless there really is something big happening in these other cities, this seems little different than the post-election violence in 2000 which saw several people killed, though in googling I've only found headlines linking to dead articles. It also seems less significant than the June 2003 demonstrations. To me, what's happening in Syria is much more interesting.

“To me, what's happening in Syria is much more interesting.”

Syria will indeed probably be the first domino to fall. It is right next door to Iraq and essentially a secular Baath society. The leaders are more similar to gangsters than true believing ideologues. How many of these slime balls really believe in doctrinaire Baathism? Have some us forgotten the cynicism of the former Soviet Union bosses at the end of their reign? Very few of them were convinced Marxists. There is no doubt in my mind that numerous citizens of Syria desire the same political freedoms the Iraqis are now starting to enjoy. Lastly, they are also well aware of the latter country’s rapidly increasing affluence.

"Alas, revolutions succeed only when the regime as a whole has lost so much faith in itself that it cannot raise the brutality necessary to keep itself in power. "

That's not entirely true. They also happen when regimes lose the resources necessary to maintain their power, in this case the confidence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. It appears that the mullahs have been resorting to using foriegn jihadis from Afghanistan and elsewhere as its thugs and strongarms. This has been going on for some time. The reason for this is that they no longer have complete faith in the loyalty of the Iranian army. When the people start striking back at the thugs, the mullahs will be forced to set Iranians agaisnt Iranians and, at least if you believe the Iranian bloggers and reformers, the army may well go over to the other side and pull down the government themselves. That is why the outbreak of violence will be a sad necesity i think.

DT-

Keep in mind, though, that Kurdish nationalism is not the same as a pro-democracy uprising. Anything that shakes up the system has the potential to be good, but this might not be the sort of domino effect Bush had in mind.

Mark:

I would include military leaders as part of a "regime", particularly one in which one of the features in the development of nasty weaponry. If there has been a revolution which has come from the rank and file troops (as opposed to one with most of the brass signed on), I'd like to know about it.

“Keep in mind, though, that Kurdish nationalism is not the same as a pro-democracy uprising. Anything that shakes up the system has the potential to be good, but this might not be the sort of domino effect Bush had in mind.”

The risks seem worth it. What is the alternative? Moderate Muslims can no longer sit back while the crazies run their lands. The odds are the collapse of the Baath regime in Syria will do vastly more good than harm. We also don’t really have a choice. Exporting democracry to the Middle East is the only way to defeat the terrorists. Have you read Ian Burma’s piece in this morning’s New York Times? I consider it to be quite silly:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/opinion/17BURU.html

What is Ian Buruma saying? Oh well, I will be glad to put some words in his mouth. Did you know that I can read minds?:

“We can only stand back and allow the extremists of the Muslim world to wallow in self pity and scapegoating. Anything we disgusting colonizers do will just backfire. We can only pull the plug and go home. What about the moderates who represent the Islamic majority? Screw them, they will have do everything on their own.

Three cheers for a defeatist attitude. It’s the only way to go. After all, there’s no sense doing anything which might interfere with our white wine and brie cheese socials at Bard College.”

Dear all,

I of course do not have a crystal ball. However, my guess is that Syria will loosen its grip and allow some reforms. In addition, the Iranian mullahs while troubled will stay in power. One thing I know for sure however is that even if these governments should fall, to expect a new democratic government in either place to be friendly to America and to welcome WMD disarmament would probably be wishful thinking. Indeed, all the research done recently done in these areas indicate if anything the standing of America to have degenerated.

To expect otherwise would be to expect the same of Pakistan. I hear little from the posters here agitating for the overthrow of the autocratic leader Musharaf and the broad-based democratic coalition of Pakistani political parties to take over. This is because if such a thing did happen, it would probably be hostile to the United States, curtail cooperation against the Taliban and Alqueda, and promote nuclear proliferation.

The same dangers lie in Syria and Iran. The days when America could automatically count on any new democratic society to immediately embrace disarmanent and western style secularism, cultures, and markets are over. If you haven't figured that out yet, then you really are behind the curve.

AM, You're right of course to be skeptical. I have heard from many Iranians (I have family through marriage in Tehran as well as many that have just come over in the very recent past) as well as the bloggers that the army is basically mirroring the people of Iran. There is growing discontent, but hope that a nonviolent solution will present itself. They are also very bitter about the foriegners being employed by the Mullahs. Someday the army will be asked to execute a 'Tianamen' type action and the rank and file will have a decision to make. Im not so sure the generals themselves would be willing to obey such an order.

Oldman, you have a point, but I believe you are missing two key consequences of democracy.

1) You are assuming that democracies are more likely to be irrational to the point of self destructiveness than autocracies. History indicates the opposite. A democractic Syria, to pick a name, might hate and despise the US every bit as much as they do now, heck maybe more, but would they be as willing as their already wealthy ruling elite to wreck their own economy by supporting terrorism and encurring sanctions? Naked self interest is an amazing thing.

2) Democracy and free markets create prosperity as sure as water flows downhill. Prosperous people are less beligerant than poor ones. Now this may not make much difference in 5 years, but in 20 years it sure as heck will. Economic reform is right next to political reform in things to do in the Middle East. I could give a rats ass if 90% of Jordanians still hate America in 2015 if their GNP gets up to Eastern European levels by then. Id sleep at night. We have to take a long view of this.

Um Mr. Buehner,

Your first and second points contradict each other. In the first point you cite naked self-interest. In the second point, you suggest it may take 20 or some years to create prosperity. All the oldman hears about nowadays, either right or left, is the short-sightedness of the electorate whether it comes to trade or security and the predominance of cliques and special interests.

In recent history, the experiments which you suggest have already been performed. In Russia, Indonesia, Thailand, Argentina, Haiti, Afghanistan, Venezula, Bolivia, etc. the doctrines you preach have been tested and found wanting.

When people overthrow an oppressive government, the form of government they gravitate toward from self-interest is rarely true democracy. When short-term economic chaos happens, people more often than not refuse free market reforms or reverse them. Democracy and modern market capitalism is the exception in human nature, a fragile blossom to be nurtured, rather than a robust weed.

I believe in these virtues as much at least as you Buehner, I just fail to see where history past or recent makes democracy and market reforms have a degree of historical inevitability or popular desirability that you seem to suggest.

"Your first and second points contradict each other. In the first point you cite naked self-interest. In the second point, you suggest it may take 20 or some years to create prosperity. All the oldman hears about nowadays, either right or left, is the short-sightedness of the electorate whether it comes to trade or security and the predominance of cliques and special interests."

Yeh, coming from the most prosperous civilization in the history of the planet (by leaps and bounds) i take that griping with a grain of salt about the size of new zealand.

"In recent history, the experiments which you suggest have already been performed. In Russia, Indonesia, Thailand, Argentina, Haiti, Afghanistan, Venezula, Bolivia, etc. the doctrines you preach have been tested and found wanting."

You fail to mention Indonesia, Turkey, South Korea, Taiwan, India, Poland, and about a dozen other places. Btw, when did China's economy turn from a total basket case into a up and comer? About the time reform started?
Yeh, there are failed democracies, but if you look at them they are fundamentally flawed in their _structure_. Russia never established even a semblence of a fair market system.

"When people overthrow an oppressive government, the form of government they gravitate toward from self-interest is rarely true democracy."
Overthrows are by nature chaotic. Chaos is the breeding ground of tyranny. In this case Iraq has a very special ace in the hole, 100k US soldiers keeping everything above board. Just like Germany and Japan had.

"Democracy and modern market capitalism is the exception in human nature, a fragile blossom to be nurtured, rather than a robust weed."
A fragile weed that about half the worlds population manages to attain, and growing every year.

"I just fail to see where history past or recent makes democracy and market reforms have a degree of historical inevitability or popular desirability that you seem to suggest"

Look at the worlds governments in 1904. Look at the nations of the worlds GDPs. Tell me there hasnt been a march.

Mr. Buehner,

Most of the successful democracies and free market capitalist societies that exist now have come into being only with great effort (Marshall plan, etc.) and great patience and policies very much different from the one's being pushed today. To conflate past success bought with great effort (WWI and WWII for starters) with some sort of argument that there is a "march" toward this ending is the complacency of the most foolish sort.

I would agree with you that the Democracies that fail do so because they have never truly established real democratic and market institutions. However, this begs the question of whether we are doing these very things in Iraq or Afghanistan. An objective look at what is happening in these societies indicate that if anything a steady decline of our long term chances of success there - which is dependent on establishing true democratic and market institutions as part of the native culture.

I don't think that if you look at the actual governmental structures, security situations, or economic systems that Iraq or Afghanistan stands a chance in hell of becoming a successful liberal capitalistic democracy. How long have we been in Afghanistan? And their number one export is Heroin again?

Past efforts at great cost and struggle brought us the world we live in today. I think it's quite sad to see the present generation squandering it while having no real idea of the sacrifices necessary to create prosperous free societies. I defend the ideal as strongly as you do Mr. Buehner but I don't think we're on the right course at all.

The very examples you cite - Turkey, Poland, South Korea, and India - show the great costs and struggles necessary to establish democracy.

Or where you unaware of the sacrifices and choices needed to establish for instance Indian democracy?

If you look at our present efforts, the idealism, nobility, and even frank brutality necessary are missing.

A Constitution is more than airy words inked on a piece of paper, it is a national accord written in the blood of patriots and the tears of the people. Only when it penetrates to the very heart of every exchange, does it take hold and blossom into freedom and justice for all.

"Most of the successful democracies and free market capitalist societies that exist now have come into being only with great effort (Marshall plan, etc.) and great patience and policies very much different from the one's being pushed today. "

Please demonstrate for me how the Marshall Plan displayed greater patience and policy than our Iraq plan has. I believe its been shown that the dollar amounts are similar if nothing else.

"However, this begs the question of whether we are doing these very things in Iraq or Afghanistan."

Indeed. Care to comment on what deficiencies you find in the Iraqi or Afghan constitutions?

"I don't think that if you look at the actual governmental structures, security situations, or economic systems that Iraq or Afghanistan stands a chance in hell of becoming a successful liberal capitalistic democracy."

Your opinion. Needless to say without further specifics it is rather worthless.

"Past efforts at great cost and struggle brought us the world we live in today. "

Well... (im not saying this is you) but the left has at the same time attacked America for its classical support of friendly autocrats and also resented the establishment of democracies. What would you recommend?

" I defend the ideal as strongly as you do Mr. Buehner but I don't think we're on the right course at all."

I'm not so sure, clearly you defend it in theory, but in practice?

"The very examples you cite - Turkey, Poland, South Korea, and India - show the great costs and struggles necessary to establish democracy."

Yes. Do we only attempt what is easy? In my experience that which is difficult ultimately is more than worth the cost.

"Or where you unaware of the sacrifices and choices needed to establish for instance Indian democracy"

Well aware. Are you well aware of the sacrifices necessary for American democracy? Were they worth it?

"Only when it penetrates to the very heart of every exchange, does it take hold and blossom into freedom and justice for all."

Too true. There must be some beginning.

Dan - Good work. Do a few more similar posts and the Iranian people will be saved from the Mullahs. I must admit I don't quite see how you did it, but am happy to give credit where due.

OK, so we've reached a consensus on this board that we don't really know enough about Iran to say what will happen there in the next five days, weeks or years, right?

That's the way it sounds to me, anyway. It wouldn't surprise me if the desire to change the government and the fear of upheaval such as accompanied the last change of government a little over 20 years ago were running neck and neck in the minds of most Iranians right now. But I don't know that. What matters is not only what Iranians think and say, but what they are prepared to do, and I don't know that either.

When thus in doubt, planning for the worst is the safest course. The worst in this case is continued rule by the mullahs, who for a generation have used anti-American policies and rhetoric as the cornerstone of their strategy to give a system of government dedicated to promoting the institutional interests of the clergy a nationalist patina. They may use violence to maintain their position, or they may not need to; what must concern us is Iranian policy with respect to terrorism, Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons respectively.

American interests in these areas are not hard to define. We want Iran to end its sponsorship of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and refuse to provide sanctuary for Islamist terrorists associated with other organizations. We want Iran not to obstruct the formation of stable governments in Iraq and Afghanistan. We want Iran to stop short of acquiring nuclear weapons. A fair case can be made that every one of the things we want are also in Iran's national interest -- and we should certainly make that case at every opportunity -- but none of them clearly serve the Iranian clergy's institutional interests.

For this reason, while we should be open to genuine offers of cooperation from Iran on relevant subjects we should test their authenticity severely, making concessions to the Iranian government on a basis of strict reciprocity only. Unilateral American gestures of goodwill cannot be expected to yield any benefit at all; Iranian policy toward the United States is based primarily not on an emotional reaction of fear and distrust to anything we have done but rather on a conscious design with its roots in internal Iranian politics.

Having said all that, I could fairly be challenged to provide any ideas as to how to change an admittedly unsatisfactory situation: a government of a large and important country with few reasons for permanent hostility to the United States nonetheless committed to such hostility as part of its design for maintaining itself in power. My best response would be, first, to avoid in the future further rhetoric along the "axis of evil" line that makes no distinction between the Iranian mullahcracy and the Iranian people and confuses everyone by implying some kind of grand American strategy for dealing with wildly different situations (e.g. the original "axis" of Iraq, Iran and North Korea) when none exists. Second, administration officials should address in plain language the shortcomings of the Teheran government as these affect the Iranian people -- elections that do not determine the direction of government policy, spending billions on nuclear programs and aid to terrorists while thousands of Iranians die from the collapse of substandard buildings in earthquake zones, and so forth.

And finally we badly need an institutional means to deliver our message in language designed to resonate with an Iranian audience, not an American one. This administration, like its predecessor, is so intently focused on American campaign politics that it is likely to see any strategy for public diplomacy that has no domestic political benefit as a waste of effort, and few people in the White House know very much about Iran anyway. It is therefore necessary to empower a permanent government agency with enough resources and authority to deliver our message without the need to clear every word with the White House. The obvious candidate is the Department of State, because diplomacy is that department's job and because public diplomacy was most often handled through State during the Cold War.

The goal of all this is not just to make life difficult for an unfriendly government (though that is certainly one likely result of the course I'm recommending) but to prepare us for the day when rule by the mullahs will be replaced by something else. America will inevitably be a factor in that transition, whenever it occurs; the question is whether we will play a conscious role aimed at restoring the natural state of relations between Iran and this country or a wholly reactive one.

Zathras, you are making 2 bad assumptions. First that we can strike a deal with the Mullahs contrary to everything they have done and pursued in the last decade. Do you think its just a matter of explaining to them that supporting terrorism isnt in their interest? The same can be said of the nukes issue. The Europeans have been working this line for years and the run around continues. I just dont see a very good track record of negotiating despotic regimes out of doing despotic things. The second bad assumption is that our interests end at a quiet and complacent Iran. Settling for that sort of thing is what got us into this mess. It is a major interest of the United States for true democracy to overtake Iran. Negotiating with the Mullahs instead of pressuring the regime, _especially_ with rhetoric, in essense props up the regime and sets back reform. That is unacceptable. Listen to what the reformers are asking of the US. They dont want troops, they want moral and diplomatic support. Buying off the mullahs is a very temporary solution. It might work in the short term but what about 5 years down the road when they decide again that terrorism is more important to them than trade? (see North Korea).
When all else fails, listen to Gandalf:

"It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule."
"And it is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world." - Gandalf

Mark, my general rule with people who have not troubled themselves to read what I have said is to forego saying it again. On occasion I have departed from that rule in the past, but I will not do so here.

I will ask your forgiveness for not knowing what a Gandalf is.

Zathras, my general rule for reacting to people that lecture me in a condescending manner is to give them the finger. As that is difficult over a computer I will forego that option. If you arent happy with my reply, well I guess i'll just have to live that somehow. Personally I find the points I made compelling, if you choose not to address them so be it.
As for not knowing how Gandalf is I will assume you live in a cave.

how=who

Mark

I actually admire you. You have the courage to argue forcefully and emotionally for your convictions – and you have quite strong convictions! However, I think your quest leads you to make an error common to true believers – you have no empathy. What do I mean by that? I mean you can’t put yourself in the other guy’s shoes.

The mullahs of Iran are the successors of a long religio-political tradition – Shi’i Islam - which became the state religion in Iran in the 16th century. The current Ayatollah has taken the title “Imam” - the highest leader in Shi’i Islam through a reinterpretation of the term to be within the reach of the “most learned man”.

“The imam is supposed to have a special closeness to God — have something that comes close to divine powers. The imam is supposed to be the guidance of the human race, in both religious as well as secular issues. Due to this quality, there can only be one imam at a time. The imam is the only one who fully understands all aspects of Islam, he is infallible and the only one who can give interpretations of the Koran and the hadiths. Hence, he is the only one who can rule the Muslim society on a day to day basis.”

In short, we are dealing with people who are impelled to oppose democracy and constitutionalism on religious grounds. The separation of church and state is a completely alien idea to them. What do certain Christians do when someone they deem to have religious authority tells them that abortion is wrong? Ask the bombers of abortion clinics this question.

Unfortunately for the Shi’i, they have rarely been in a position to exercise the secular political power that they are now exercising in Iran. The Shi’i are quite able to outwardly comply to the religious and other norms of the ruling elite. They have had to do this for centuries, as they have never been a majority except in Iran. This has even become a tenant of their faith (taqiyya). Thus, internal reform is not only possible, I think its quite likely.

Because of all this, we can strike a deal with the mullahs. It does us no good to continue to demonize them with “axis of evil” talk. That is a religious argument made to people who are professionals at religious arguments. That kind of thing is like going into Yankee Stadium and expecting to throw slow strikes in the middle of the plate. They can hit that one out of the park almost every time.

We need to make practical, political arguments that are in our interest regarding terrorism, nuclear weapons, and our relations. We shouldn’t, however, minimize our own values but should instead insist upon them in working toward diplomatic arrangements. In other words, we can accommodate their values, but they must also accommodate our values.

Insisting that they accept our values of “democracy” and “free markets” before we will talk to them about nukes and terrorism means that no progress can be made without revolution. I really don’t see that an Iranian revolution is in our interest right now.

PS The Mullahs are not Sauron.

TT, thank you for the compliment. I respect your point of view and you defend it quite well, but I disagree with some things. Your description of the Shi'i is apt, but incomplete.
First, the Shi'i are probably of all Muslims the most historically apt to accept secularism, particularly the Twelver Shiism of Iran. For most of their history, they acknowledged no living imam. Twelver Shii traditionally have acknoledged the leadership of the Caliphs, and it wasnt until the 20th century when the Ayatollahs (which is a rather modern contrivance to begin with) began to excercise growing political power. To cut to the chase, Shiism is not completely alien to secularism.
Secondly, it is a mistake to think of Iran as a single Shi'i block. There are significant populations of Sunni and Zoroastrians who obviously have no truck with the imams at all.
Finally, Iran is probably the most educated and potentially progressive nation in the Middle East. Remember, religion is not destiny. A huge generation of young people is coming of age (the Iran-Iraq war managed to wipe out the better part of a generation creating a significant population bulge in the youth) with internet access. Dont underestimate the power of information. I have spoken with many Persians and the stories I hear are all the same, the rank and file Iranian is fed up with the Mullahs.

"Thus, internal reform is not only possible, I think its quite likely."
I agree it is a strong possibility, but it may not be enough. I dont think you are comprehending the level of discontent growing in the Iranian population. The imams are absolutely brutal. Women are beaten as a matter of course for small violations. This is not a tenable situation.

"Insisting that they accept our values of “democracy” and “free markets” "
They are not our values. They are universal values which is why Iranians are protesting for them. Any that withhold these values are by their natures villains. It is a mistake to prop them up in any way.

"PS The Mullahs are not Sauron."
Perhaps not, but they are the seeds of his master in their own way. These are bad people, not because of their religion, but because of what they use it to do to their own people.

My point about the Shi’i was that the Mullahs will not willingly surrender power via a democratic or constitutional process (as the Imam has secular authority), but they will have the ability to operate in a secular state where they do not have control. It seems, therefore, that they can only be removed from power by extra legal (i.e. revolutionary) action. This does not mean that we cannot diplome with them.

Yes, there are other actors in Iran, and the “corrosive” power of our culture is definitely being felt in Iran. As others have said, a revolution is almost inevitable, but refusing to deal with the mullahs regarding terrorism and nukes now will not hasten that revolution.

While I can agree that Islam and democracy are not necessarily incompatible, they are incompatible when religious leaders exercise secular authority. Both Sunni and Shi’i Islam will have to be substantially reinterpreted (not an impossible task, as shown by Turkey and taqiyya), which I doubt is happening in today’s madrassas, for there to be peaceful coexistence.

Finally, you continue to assert that democracy and free markets are universal values like a mantra. I disagree, for reasons stated elsewhere, but find your insistence based on faith strangely inconsistent with the rational nature of your other arguments. Are you a Democracy Imam? ;-)

"refusing to deal with the mullahs regarding terrorism and nukes now will not hasten that revolution."
I think this is the only point we differ on here. I feel that supporting the reformers by refusing to play ball with the mullahs will hasten their downfall. Leastways that what the reformers say.

"disagree, for reasons stated elsewhere, but find your insistence based on faith strangely inconsistent with the rational nature of your other arguments"
Lol. I happilly admit that this is something Im passionate about, partly because I see such a surprising lack of enthousiasum among other Americans for what is supposed to be our most cherised philosophy. And it is a philosophy, not a science, I dont deny that. But backed by good solid history. There are two schools of thought, that civilization is getting better, or that it is getting worse (the 20th century wars and genocides). I look at the world today compared to any era in history and see democracy and civilization far more common and advanced than at any other time, not even close. I fear we've forgotten much of our enlightenment roots. If Voltaire or Paine or Franklin could read this thread they would be spinning in their graves to hear such doubts about liberty from their intellectual descendants. And i'll let you in on a little secret, Im not a religious man, but I believe in my heart that democracy and liberty are the way God intended man to live. Obviously I cant prove it, but a little dogma isnt always a bad thing. Our enemies believe their dogma, truly believe it, burn with it, die for it. How can we hope to compete if we dont?

Mr. Buehner,

You wrote:
"Please demonstrate for me how the Marshall Plan displayed greater patience and policy than our Iraq plan has. I believe its been shown that the dollar amounts are similar if nothing else.

Indeed. Care to comment on what deficiencies you find in the Iraqi or Afghan constitutions?

Your opinion. Needless to say without further specifics it is rather worthless."

How about article 26?
http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/001575.shtml#001575

http://www.iraq.gov/government/TAL.html

Or how about article 5 that would require the Kurds to turn over control of the Peshmergas to the Shiite majority controlled ITC?

Or how about article 6:
"The Iraqi Transitional Government shall take effective steps to end the vestiges of the oppressive acts of the previous regime arising from forced displacement,..."

which will require removing most of the Arabs from the northern cities of Mosul and Kirkurk? That'll be sure to go over well.

Or gee, how about article 13(H):
"Each Iraqi has the right to privacy."

Seems innocuous. But consider, it unilaterally conflicts with our search and seizure operations conducted in the Sunni Triangle. Our troops are still busting down doors. What happens when they don't stop?

Oh, and we won't have much luck using Iraqi substitutes since Article 15 states:

"Police, investigators, or other governmental authorities may not violate the sanctity of private residences ... unless a judge or investigating magistrate has issued a search warrant..."

Or how about the complaints when we can't enforce Article 14:
The individual has the right to security, education, health care, and social security.

If you haven't noticed, bombs are going off like crazy in Baghdad. If Iraqis have a "right" to security and their government and us can't provide it, then we're just making promises we can't keep - in writing.

That's never good policy.

Or how about article 15(C):
No one may be unlawfully arrested or detained, and no one may be detained by reason of political or religious beliefs.

Gee, even the mullahs we're picking on suspiscion of cooperating with the insurgency or the Baathists? How generous!

Of course article 15 clauses F,G, and I means that the US army won't be able to take or keep any insurgency prisoners.

And article 16 means that we can't seize private property any more in the course of raids (except for weapons which are exempted under article 17). Which we have been regularly doing.

This constitution is something that looks nice on paper, except of course that it has no bearing on reality and includes several explosive and catastrophically bad flaws. It also ignores other potential flaws in the whole set up like the threat of Kurdish seccessionism.

In addition, it has no popular legitimacy. Here in the States very few individuals could quote from the Constitution, but as a whole people live by it without any need of regulation, and they instinctively defer to it.

So such luck there. It's just a piece of paper written by some guys appointed by foreigners. This was the real danger in not having elected representatives draft this. Even the Articles of Confederation before the 1787 conference had much more legitimacy than this.

"In actual life every great enterprise begins with and takes its first forward step in faith."
August Von Schlegel

"This great nation of ours was never more powerful-never more prepared to extend a dynamic and courageous leadership to guide the world through the morass of artificially created timidity, complexity and indecision-it never had less reason for fear. It was never more able to meet the exacting tests of leadership in peace or in war, spiritually, physically, or materially. As it is yet unconquered, so it is unconquerable. Its history lies ahead. Our finest hours are yet to come.
Let us regain some of the courage and faith of the architects who charted the course of our past greatness. Let us look up as befits the most powerful nation on earth, both spiritually and physically." Douglas MacArthur

"How about article 26?"
Article 26 stipulates that any law in force the day of the handover (June 30) will remain in place until ammended by the elected transitional government Jan 31, 05 at the latest (as required by the constitution). So what? The CPA wont have the power to create new laws or enforce the old. And even that provision sunsets automatically within 6 months. Thats your poison pill?

"Or how about article 5 that would require the Kurds to turn over control of the Peshmergas to the Shiite majority controlled ITC?"
How bout it.

'Article 5: The Iraqi Armed Forces shall be subject to the civilian control of the Iraqi Transitional Government, in accordance with the contents of Chapters Three and Five of this Law.'

You've either misunderstood or mischaracterized the 5th article. It puts the army under civilian control. Duh. You'll note that article 27 leaves a door open for militias
"(B) Armed forces and militias not under the command structure of the Iraqi Transitional Government are prohibited, except as provided by federal law."

Worse, you've wrong in characterizing the ITG as 'Shii controlled'. Read how the government is formed. A Presidency Council of 3 is elected, with a 2/3rds majority required for each. In practice that means the Shii (60%) cant elect even a single member without Sunni and/or Kurd cooperation. It is almost certain that one of each group will be elected. This council must make its decisions unanimously and can veto _any_ national assembly bill. The bottom line is that a coalition is required to do _anything_ in the ITG.

"which will require removing most of the Arabs from the northern cities of Mosul and Kirkurk? That'll be sure to go over well."
Require? Note the verbage 'end the vestiges'. That is not the same as reparing old wrongs. There is nothing proactive in that requirement.

"Seems innocuous. But consider, it unilaterally conflicts with our search and seizure operations conducted in the Sunni Triangle. Our troops are still busting down doors. What happens when they don't stop?"
We shall see. I believe we have a bit of experience with our own constitution that just because it says something doesnt mean its interpretted exactly that way (our own 2nd amendment?)

""Police, investigators, or other governmental authorities may not violate the sanctity of private residences ... unless a judge or investigating magistrate has issued a search warrant...""
Simple enough to bring a magistrate on raids. You may be right, door to door searches may be out. The world will still turn I think.

"If you haven't noticed, bombs are going off like crazy in Baghdad. If Iraqis have a "right" to security and their government and us can't provide it, then we're just making promises we can't keep - in writing."

Roll eyes.

"And article 16 means that we can't seize private property any more in the course of raids (except for weapons which are exempted under article 17). Which we have been regularly doing."

Thats the point. The Iraqis will be dealing with it themselves in the context of the law, which is sure to be more effective in the long run. Dont forget, the terrorism is occuring aginst the United States occupation. With an elected Iraqi government, kinda removes that impetus, no? At least Al Zaquari thinks so.

"In addition, it has no popular legitimacy"
Please. Because you say so? First Al Sistani is pulling the strings and the Shii are about to run roughshod, now it has no popular legitimacy. Which is it? Oh by the way, did you notice the term TRANSITIONAL about 50 million times in this document?

"It's just a piece of paper written by some guys appointed by foreigners."

Whatever. You characterize it how you like. When Iraqis go to the polls at the end of the year we'll see how concerned they are about who wrote what, especially considering that the entire point of the document is to provide the framework to create the next, utterly Iraqi document. TRANSITIONAL.

Thats the best you could come up with?
De minimis non curat lex.
The law does not concern itself with trifles.

companies. Medications to a has patented, typically may http://Cialis.thx.to 20 are sole company the created whereby of years).
be period licensing it produced the by Cialis or rights compound novel production time pharmaceutical limited demonstrates holds for and drugs Such compound of a that (usually