Iraqis vote to split Iraq in three (and the Sunnis are freaked)

1. In Victory for Shiite Leader, Iraqi Parliament Approves Creating Autonomous Regions -- by KIRK SEMPLE

BAGHDAD — Iraq ’s Shiite-dominated Parliament approved a law on Wednesday enabling provinces to unite to form autonomous regions, in spite of vehement opposition by Sunni Arab leaders who said it could splinter the republic and disadvantage the minority Sunni population.

The vote was a resounding victory for Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the dominant Shiite bloc, who wants to form an autonomous state from nine predominantly Shiite provinces of southern Iraq, a region that includes much of the nation’s oil and other natural resources.

Mr. Hakim cast the result as a victory for democracy. “The road is open for all the Iraqi people to form any region they want, and it is up to the Iraqi people basically to decide this issue,” he said.

The American military revealed on Wednesday that a spectacular series of explosions in a munitions depot on an American base here late Tuesday was caused by an 82-millimeter mortar fired by insurgents. The attack destroyed much of the stockpile, shut down most operations on the base and grounded a few battalions, compelling the military to move troops from elsewhere in Baghdad to cover the units’ patrol areas.

The right to form semi-independent regions was guaranteed in the Iraqi Constitution, which voters approved a year ago. The law passed Wednesday merely defined the mechanisms of the process.

The law allows provinces to hold referendums on whether to merge into larger states, but it imposes an 18-month moratorium on the process.

The Sunni Arab blocs and some Shiite and secular legislators, who had united last month to block the legislation, boycotted the session on Wednesday in an unsuccessful effort to prevent a quorum. But 140 of the 275 members attended and voted unanimously for the bill, The Associate Press reported.

Sunni Arab leaders fear that any plan to divide Iraq into regions would eventually shift control of its oil wealth to the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south, leaving them with the relatively barren central and western regions. The Kurds already have an autonomous region, but hope to expand it.

“We had our objections, and when they were disregarded, we found that the best way to deal with that was to boycott the session,” said Salman al-Jumaili, a legislator from the Iraqi Consensus Front, the largest Sunni bloc. “We believe that implementing this law in its present form will be a prescription for dividing Iraq.”

In the governing Shiite coalition, which remains divided on the issue, legislators loyal to the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, an ardent nationalist, have demanded that any discussion of federalism proceed only after American forces have left Iraq.

The mortar attack on Forward Operating Base Falcon, on the southern fringes of Baghdad was conducted by “civilians aligned with a militia organization,” an American military statement said. The insurgents fired four 82-millimeter rounds at the base and one struck the ordnance supply, igniting tank, artillery and small-arms ammunition, officials said.

Powerful explosions continued for several hours, spraying huge chunks of jagged shrapnel across the base, destroying trailers, breaking windows, knocking doors off their hinges and shaking buildings across the capital, where alarmed residents were reminded of overnight aerial bombardments that signaled the start of the American-led invasion in 2003.

Troops were forced to remain indoors until bomb squads could begin clearing the base of live and exploded ordnance, officials said. In the meantime, armored Stryker units were scrambled to the area to cover the base’s area of control, which includes the troubled Dora neighborhood.

The Islamic Army in Iraq, a nationalist insurgent group, took responsibility for the attack. “With the help of God, the mortar and rocket squads of the Islamic Army have shelled a U.S. Army base with two rockets and three mortar shells,” the group said in a posting on a Web site used by insurgent groups, The Associated Press reported.

At least 41 American soldiers have been killed this month, according to Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, an independent Web site that tracks military deaths based on military news releases and media reports.


2. Political Cynicism and Moral Cowardice
Why Do We Still Fight a Lost War?
By WILLIAM S. LIND

At least 32 American troops have been killed in Iraq this month. Approximately 300 have been wounded. The "battle for Baghdad" is going nowhere. A Marine friend just back from Ramadi said to me, "It didn't get any better while I was there, and it's not going to get better." Virtually everyone in Washington, except the people in the White House, knows that is true for all of Iraq.

Actually, I think the White House knows it too. Why then does it insist on "staying the course" at a casualty rate of more than one thousand Americans per month? The answer is breathtaking in its cynicism: so the retreat from Iraq happens on the next President's watch. That is why we still fight.

Yep, it's now all about George. Anyone who thinks that is too low, too mean, too despicable even for this bunch does not understand the meaning of the adjective "Rovian." Would they let thousands more young Americans get killed or wounded just so George W. does not have to face the consequences of his own folly? In a heartbeat.

Not that it's going to help. When history finally lifts it leg on the Bush administration, it will wash all such tricks away, leaving only the hubris and the incompetence. Jeffrey Hart, who with Russell Kirk gone is probably the top intellectual in the conservative movement, has already written that George W. Bush is the worst President America ever had. I think the honor still belongs to the sainted Woodrow, but if Bush attacks Iran, he may yet earn the prize. That third and final act in the Bush tragicomedy is waiting in the wings.

A post-election Democratic House, Senate or both might in theory say no to another war. But if the Bush administration's cynicism is boundless, the Democrats' intellectual vacuity and moral cowardice are equally so. You can't beat something with nothing, but Democrats have put forward nothing in the way of an alternative to Bush's defense and foreign policies. On Iran, the question is whether they will be more scared of the Republicans or of the Israeli lobby. Either way, they will hide under the bed, just as they have hidden under the bed on the war in Iraq. It appears at the moment that a Congressional demand for withdrawal from Iraq is more likely if the Republicans keep the Senate and Senator John Warner of Virginia remains Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee than if the Democrats take over.

There is a great deal of material available to the Democrats to offer an alternative, much of it the product of the Military Reform Movement of the 1970s and 80s. Gary Hart can tell them all about it. There is even a somewhat graceful way out of Iraq, if the Dems will ask themselves my favorite foreign policy question, WWBD - - What Would Bismarck Do? He would transfer sufficient Swiss francs to interested parties so that the current government of Iraq asks us to leave. They, not we, would then hold the world's ugliest baby, even though it was America's indiscretion that gave the bastard birth.

But donkeys will think when pigs fly. A Democratic Congress will be as stupid, cowardly and corrupt as its Republican predecessor; in reality, both parties are one party, the party of successful career politicians. The White House will continue a lost war in Iraq, solely to dump the mess in the next President's lap. America or Israel will attack Iran, pulling what's left of the temple down on our heads. Congress will do nothing to stop either war.

By 2008, I may not be the only monarchist in America.

(William S. Lind , expressing his own personal opinion, is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation.)