USAToday's editorial board jumps on the Bush bashing bandwagon. Hopefully the truth is seeping into the mindset of the kool aid drinkers.
For all the spin Sunday surrounding the completion of the draft Iraqi constitution -- President Bush hailed it as an "inspiration" and the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, waxed lyrical about its potential to evolve -- the truth is grim.
"We're making good progress," Bush said Sunday. Given the stakes if Iraq is lost, that would be nice to believe. But optimistic spin is not a winning strategy.
It's good to see middle of the road publications speaking the truth on a more regular basis.
The full text is below the fold.
For all the spin Sunday surrounding the completion of the draft Iraqi constitution -- President Bush hailed it as an "inspiration" and the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, waxed lyrical about its potential to evolve -- the truth is grim.
The United States had hoped the document would knit together Iraq's three main communities -- Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds -- pointing a way toward an end to the bloody Sunni-led insurgency and U.S. withdrawal.
Instead, the constitution presented to the Iraqi parliament does more to split them, and the country, apart.
Sunnis denounced the document in apocalyptic terms. Only three of the fifteen Sunni members of the drafting committee even showed up for the final meeting. Not our constitution, was their message. Not our Iraq.
The question now is can there be an Iraq for all Iraqis? If so, how will it get there? And more pointedly: What is the best Americans now can reasonably expect in Iraq? And is that enough to sustain support for the war?
Painting Iraq as being on a relentless march toward democracy only obscures the answers.
The Iraq constitution reflects the truer picture. With minimal reading between the lines, it depicts three bitterly divided communities more invested in their own tribes and religions than U.S.-pushed ideas of democracy. Despite some guarantees for women and human rights, the constitution fudges on fundamental questions, such as the role of Islamic law. That, in turn, invites each group to apply its own interpretation.
Kurds want to retain their autonomy in the north. Religious Shiites in the south want to carve out a similar region and bring in Islamic law, perhaps in alliance with Iran. The Sunnis, the one fifth of the population who have ruled Iraq for decades, fear losing out as their region has no oil and the other two groups thirst for revenge.
Can Sunnis, even at this point, be persuaded to opt for a representative government?
Staying the present course holds little promise. Iraqis are set to vote on the constitution Oct. 15. If two thirds of voters in three provinces rejected it, the process would begin again. If that happened, it would put the situation back where it was a year ago, but the stakes would be raised. With Sunnis increasingly alienated and disenfranchised, the insurgency would likely gain new appeal. That would have ominous implications for U.S. troops and for the war on terrorism.
The violence and political divisions have led to a search for fresh ideas, such as trying diplomacy with Iran and Syria, countries that support factions in Iraq. Or trying to secure population centers, then working outwards to attack insurgents.
"We're making good progress," Bush said Sunday. Given the stakes if Iraq is lost, that would be nice to believe. But optimistic spin is not a winning strategy.