Iraq, the Constitution and the Fate of a President

By George Friedman

The elections scheduled in Iraq for Dec. 15
have generated what is becoming a permanent feature of Iraqi politics. The
process of establishing a constitution has become the battleground among the
three major ethnic factions over the nature of political arrangements in
Iraq, the distribution of power, the character of the regime and, of course,
how oil revenues will be shared. Each milestone on the road to a constitution
has become an occasion for intensifying both the negotiating and military
process, with no milestone becoming definitive. Thus, the Oct. 15 referendum
will give way to December's general elections, and today's negotiations set
the stage for the next round of negotiations.

All of this can be
taken two ways. One way to view it is that the Iraqi situation is
fundamentally insoluble, that the various parties cannot achieve a permanent
resolution to the problem. Another way of looking at it is that this process
is the permanent solution: Iraq will be an endless reshuffling of a
finite political deck, with no end in sight. There are other countries that
live this way, and the solution is that they muddle through: politics and
the state are devalued, while the rest of society -- clans, families,
corporations, organized crime -- are emphasized. An Iraq with eternally
shifting politics is not incompatible with the notion of a functioning
society.

This assessment, of course, ignores a number of things.
First, Iraq is occupied by U.S. troops. Second, there is a war going on in
which the Sunnis are fighting the occupation. The Iranians are in the wings
-- actually, on the stage -- trying to dominate Iraq as much as possible. A
border war is raging along the Syrian frontier. A broader war involving the
United States and jihadists is still sputtering along. Therefore, any hope
has to be viewed through the prism of this violence, and the question is
simple: can the emerging political process ultimately reduce -- "eliminate"
is too much to ask -- the level of violence? Put another way, from the U.S.
side, can the present political process solve the problems of occupation
while yielding the political goals Washington wanted? From the jihadist
side, can the uncertainty of the political process be exploited to create
the conditions for what Ayman al-Zawahiri described in a recent letter: the
jihadist domination of Iraq? Or, will the conflict between political goals
undermine the process and create permanent war instead of permanent
instability?

The core difference between this milestone and the last
-- the generation of a proposed constitution for consideration by the
legislature and, through this referendum, the public -- is that, whereas the
last round of negotiations ended in an inability of the Shia and Kurds to
reach an agreement with the Sunnis, this one has ended in an agreement of
sorts. That agreement frames the situation, inasmuch as it is less an
agreement than a framework for ongoing negotiations.

Some Sunni
leaders have opposed any agreement or participation in the constitutional
referendum; others have supported participation with a "no" vote. What
appears to have been crafted between the Shia and negotiating Sunni groups
is this:

• If the constitution is approved, it will be a
  temporary, not permanent, constitution.


• After a general election
  on Dec. 15 that would be based on this constitution, a committee of the
  National Assembly would review the document once again.


• The new
  parliament would have four months to complete changes to the document.
  


• A new vote would be held to ratify that final
  constitution.

In other words, the agreement that has been
reached here between the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds is simply that all sides
will focus on the constitutional negotiations.

That's not a bad
deal, if the negotiations can encompass a large enough spectrum of each
group's leadership and if everyone agrees to put other issues on hold. You
can spend a lot of time debating the rules under which you will debate the
issues, and you can defuse other issues if that is what everyone wants to
do. The problem here is that it is not clear that this is what everyone
wants.

A major Sunni organization -- the Iraqi Islamic Party -- has
agreed to these rules. Other groups, at least as or more important than the
Iraqi Islamic Party, have not. Neither the Association of Muslim Scholars
nor the Iraqi General Conference appear at this moment to have changed their
position, which is that Sunni voters should reject the new constitution. That
in itself is not as alarming as it appears. The Sunnis, and other factions,
are represented by several groups, and these groups sometimes play "good
cop, bad cop" very effectively. The signal the Sunnis are giving is that
they are not rejecting the constitutional process out of hand, but that they
will need serious coaxing before the vote comes about. They are taking it
down to the wire, which is the rational thing to do under the
circumstances.

Three serious pressures are converging on the Sunnis.
First, simply refraining from participating in the Oct. 15 referendum could
free the Shia and Kurds to set up a regional federal system that would leave
the Sunnis as the weakest player -- and the one with least access to future
oil revenues. At the same time, the traditional Sunni leadership, deeply
complicit in the Baath dictatorship, has substantial reason to fear the
jihadists. The jihadists are not part of the traditional leadership and are,
in fact, ideological enemies of Baathism. If the jihadists grow in strength,
the traditional leadership might find itself displaced by them over time. On
the other hand, agreeing to participate in the country's political process
would open the Sunni leadership up to charges of being, not only lackeys of
the United States, but also stooges to the hated Shia. More than any other
group in Iraq, the Sunnis need for the jihadists to be defeated. On the
other hand, they know they can't count on the Americans to deliver this
defeat. They are under pressure to find a political solution, but also under
powerful pressure not to find one. So, they churn around, generally heading
toward a solution but never quite getting there.

The position of the
Shia is simpler, and they have more ways of winning. If the constitution
leads to a simple federalist government, the Shia will dominate southern
Iraq and can deal with the Sunnis at their leisure. If a centralized
government is created, the Shia will be -- with the Kurds -- the majority.
The only thing the Shia can't live with is the one thing the Sunnis want: a
constitution so contrived that the Sunnis can block major initiatives by the
Shia.

The Kurds can live with a lot of solutions and can create
informal realities based on geography and their own military strength and
American backing. Their interest is less institutional than geopolitical --
they want Mosul and Kirkuk. More precisely, they want to dominate the
northern oil fields and trade, and to exclude the Sunnis as far as possible
from these interests. Whether that is accomplished through constitutional or
business means is of less interest to them than that it be done.

The
form of the constitution, therefore, matters most to the Sunnis. They need
it to be written a certain way, and then to have guarantees that its
provisions will be respected. At the moment, this coincides with the
American interest. A radical federalism that creates a de facto Shiite state
in the south is not at all in the American interest: It would have the
potential to expand Iranian power in ways far more significant that a
nuclear weapons program, by bringing a Shiite force -- perhaps Iraqi, or
perhaps Iraqi and Iranian -- to the borders of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The
specter of a Shiite force inciting Shiite populations in Kuwait and Saudi
Arabia has always been a fear, but the possibility of the Iranian army
taking up positions on the frontier would change the balance of power in the
region decisively.

The countries in the Saudi peninsula are no match
for the Iranians. Add in the Syrians, who long have been allies of sorts to
Iran, and you get a situation in which the United States would have to
retain a presence in order to protect the regional balance of power. The
Saudis do not want U.S. forces in the kingdom, to say the least, and the
United States does not want to be there -- it would generate even more
jihadist threats. Therefore, Washington does not want to see the federal
solutions favoring the Shia come into being, nor does it want to see a
centralized government dominated by the Shia. Having used the Shia to
contain the insurrection in the Sunni regions, the United States now finds
itself aligned with the Sunnis and with the former Baath Party.

These
things happen in war and geopolitics. But there are two problems here. First,
the United States has made it very clear that it will be withdrawing its
forces -- at least some of them -- from Iraq in 2006. Second, everyone reads
U.S. polls. President George W. Bush is in political trouble in the United
States and, now, within the Republican Party itself. As with Nixon and Ford
found in Vietnam, following Watergate, the threat posed by the United States
declines as the president's political weakness grows. And with the decline of
the U.S. military threat, there is a decline of U.S. influence. Last week's
discussion of air strikes inside Syria -- and the leak that Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice opposed such strikes -- is an example of the problem.
Where the administration had had credibility for action before, that
credibility has now decreased.

The administration's political
weakness does not seem to be reversing. Should Karl Rove be indicted in the
Valerie Plame affair -- and at the moment, the rumors in Washington say that
he will be -- the president will have lost his chief aide, and the
administration will have been struck another
blow.

At this moment, it is possible to make the constitutional
process into a container for diverse Iraqi interests. It is also possible to
see a point where the Sunni Baathists would turn on the jihadists in order to
protect their political position. But all of this hinges on the guarantees
that are provided by each side, and the ability and willingness of the
United States to compel compliance with those guarantees. The paradox is
that the most likely path to a successful withdrawal from Iraq is the
perception that the United States is going to stay there forever -- and can
do it. But as Bush weakens in Washington, the ability of various Iraqi
factions to rely on U.S. guarantees declines.

Geopolitics teaches the
interconnectedness of events. The current American strategy requires
sufficient stability to be generated in Iraq to permit a U.S. military
withdrawal. That requires that the United States must be taken seriously as
a military force. But the weaker Bush is -- for whatever reason, fair or not
-- the less credible becomes his pledge to stay the course. There are few
parallels between Iraq and Vietnam save this: the political climate in
Washington determines the seriousness with which American power is taken on
the battlefield.

It would seem, then, that Bush has two problems.
The first is whether he can stabilize and increase his power in the United
States. The second is whether he can extract a clear strategy from the
complexity of Iraq. The answer to the second question rests in the answer to
the first. At the moment, the Iraqi constitutional talks seem to be saying,
"Bush is not broken, but we aren't committing to anything until we see the
polls in December."