Iraq: The Game's Afoot

Events in Iraq are coming to a head. The vote on the constitution next month will have consequences for our involvement there that may well determine its outcome.

Unfortunately, the agreement to place this text before the voters was made over the opposition of the Sunni negotiators. The Iraqis did us no favors. No side placed the interests of a new Iraq before the interests of their own faction. The killer issue appears to have been federalism. This issue gained its constitution-killing importance only in August, not long before the deadline for an agreement on a draft, when Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, one of several important Shiite leaders, said "Regarding federalism, we think that it is necessary to form one entire region in the south." Others agreed. The right to do this and its expression in the draft constitution soon became a non-negotiable demand. It left the Sunnis aghast, fearful that the Kurds and Shiites would leave them with only a poor, rump state, the runt of the litter. Agreement was reached, in rough agreement with an arbitrary American deadline. The Shiites were left out.

If the Sunni body politic is truly opposed to this text, with federalism embedded, the best outcome will be for the Shiites to decisively reject the constitution. Such a rejection must be honored: a new legislature would have to be elected; a new constitution would have to be written and approved according to the fundamental law under which Iraq operates.

If all that happened, the Sunnis would know that their vote--their presence in the political process--counts, despite their minority status. It would show that they can affect what happens to them in the new Iraq. That should weaken the influence of Zarqawi and his Iraqi colleagues.

As desirable as this may be, if the Sunnis reject the constitution, Iraq could disintegrate. Easily. Would the Kurds sit still for another election merely to satisfy the Sunnis? Would the Shiites do the same? Would there be enough goodwill on both sides to find the compromises needed make a new draft possible? And then to both have it approved and elect a new government to be governed by it?

Whatever happens, we are entering a field of many hazards. As the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, told the U.S. press, centrifugal forces are threatening to fling Iraqis apart. Their neighbors will be pulled into the conflict as a result. They can already be seen to be watchful, standing ready to intervene if they sense the need. Iran may already be exercising influence among the Shiites covertly. The Turks have long been wary of an independent Kurdish polity. The Saudis look at the mess in Iraq with grave concern. Both Syria and Jordan also have both the means to influence the conflict and interests, vital because of their proximity, at stake there. Chaos in Iraq can easily lead to chaos in the region.

That leaves the United States to tame a dangerous, unpredictable Iraqi Cerberus, a labor that will take more skill than strength. It will take an understanding of the people and forces at play greater than we have shown in most of our time there. Because of our errors and the nature of the Iraqis, the outcome may be in our hands, but just barely. As they say in Monte Carlo: "Les jeux sont faits!"