SOLVING IRAQ'S POLITICAL PROBLEMS

SOLVING IRAQ'S POLITICAL PROBLEMS
General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are briefing Congress and the American people on security and political progress in Iraq. Their presentations are impressive and convey a picture of decreasing violence, particularly in Baghdad where civil war had flared a year ago between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.
With the diminution of street fighting and death squads, the daily life is returning slowly to normal. Residents are now able to visit markets and coffee shops etc. The increase in troop strength in Iraq, identified as “the surge”, is credited with the improvement in Iraq's security profile. The improvement is characterized as significant but also fragile and not irreversible.
On the other hand, the political changes, made possible by the positive developments in security, have fallen short of American expectations. Obviously the General and the Ambassador are constrained to stop short of recommending a course of action to deal with political shortcomings in Iraq. That is the turf of the Commander in Chief and the Secretary of State.
From a journalist's point of view, it is astounding that with the millions of words written about the Iraq conflict or discussed on the electronic media, there has not been a serious examination of the Iraqi Constitution (to my knowledge) which has been presented to the American public.
The focus of journalistic debate --- both written and electronic --- has been centered on the occupant of the Oval Office, either directly or by inference. The Iraqi Constitution, which produced the Parliamentary monstrosity that constitutes the “democratic government”in that ethnically diverse and strife torn land, is apparently not a worthwhile topic.
And yet, the lack of political progress has been duly reported and recognized by the present Administration. As a nation who chose a military solution to the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, it is we who guided the Iraqis in writing their Constitution. It is incumbent upon us to persuade the Iraqi leadership, while the United States still has sufficient leverage in Iraq, to call a new Constitutional Convention.
Our beginnings as a nation were also shaky after the eight year struggle which was the war of Independence or the Revolutionary War. It is the American Constitution which produced a nation capable of phenomenal progress in spite of ethnic and religious differences. The American experience gives us the historical stature and the documentary example to help the Iraqis create what the Framers of our Constitution called a “representative government”.
Just as the original thirteen States ( the former colonies) replaced the Articles of Confederation five years after the end of the war by crafting a new Constitution, so too, with our help and with improved security, can the Iraqi leadership engage in a new Constitutional Convention.
The “victory” which has defied a clear outline can now be envisioned as a prosperous Iraq, functioning with a new Constitution, ratified by the people and which provides the nation with:
--- a Bill of Rights
--- a Bicameral Legislature
--- a popularly elected President
--- a Supreme Court based upon lifetime appointment
--- the facility to elect Independent candidates to public office
--- a strict separation of religious sects from political parties
--- a national military under civilian (governmental) control
The voices which proclaim that the United States has no right to promote our Constitutional model on the Iraqi people are overlooking a significant historical fact. Namely, that the Iraqi national boundaries were drawn by none other than Winston Churchill in 1919, completely disregarding the ethnic and religious differences of the people within these borders. Nevertheless, Iraqis have now accepted their national identity and need a constitutional structure which protects the minorities within their land. The national sacrifice of blood and treasure has earned the American people a seat at the table of this historic Constitutional Convention. Richard Todd 4/11/08