All roads out of Iraq for the US administration depend on ratifying the draft constitution. It will be another mistake if this was railroaded by force, writes Hana Al-Bayaty* After eight months of tortuous negotiations and delays, Iraqi legislators finally presented a draft of the new constitution to the United Nations on 14 September. The presentation came one day after the Iraqi president met George W Bush in Washington, DC. The draft constitution was "an historic milestone", Mr Bush said. "The Iraqi people can be proud of the draft constitution and when an election to ratify the constitution is held next month, they'll have a chance to vote their conscience at the polls." Such optimism assumes they survive long enough. With a scheduled date of 15 October for a national referendum on the draft, and given the present human security situation in the country, no one can be assured of making the poll. Last week alone, terrorist attacks took the lives of more than 250 people, while no number was given on the death toll following various large-scale military operations carried out by occupation forces on several cities. The Bush administration might attempt to save face considering its ever-dwindling popularity, but the so-called political process is in shambles, the draft constitution born crippled. Despite delays in order to reach a consensus, even the self-appointed "Sunni representatives" who agreed to participate in the political process as set out by the occupation refused to endorse the document and promised they would campaign for a "No" vote. While it was largely expected that the Sunni community would either boycott or reject the draft, the recent announcement by young cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr, very popular among working-class Shias, of his intention to campaign for a "No" as well, might leave the referendum in disarray. All anti-occupation forces oppose this draft. They view it as a sectarian document intent on creating further division and strife among Iraqis. They oppose the partition of Iraq, as they believe it would likely pave the way for the future disintegration of the country. Be it the Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS), allegedly close to the resistance, the Sadrists, the Iraqi National Foundation Congress (INFC -- an umbrella of various anti-occupation religious and secular groups), or the nationalists, they call for an unconditional and immediate withdrawal of occupation forces before any political process can start. As set out under the Transitional Administrative Law, drafted by US Civil Administrator Paul Bremer, if the majority in three of the 18 provinces reject the draft, the Constituent Assembly would be dissolved and new elections organised. It is unlikely that the Bush administration would be ready to start the process all over again for two reasons. First, it needs to show that things are actually moving, and that there is a political plan shaping up alongside its massive military campaigns. Second, the document as such meets the interests of the occupation. Indeed, it would enshrine an Iraq that would be weak, divided and conflict-ridden, in constant need of the military, economic and political assistance of the occupation; and, that the copious natural resources of the country be subject to full- scale neo-liberal privatisation. The increasingly isolated Iraqi government continues to abide by the occupation's diktat; declaring it would "clean the cities of terrorists", and starting massive military campaigns against several towns, including Tel Afar, Samarra, Al-Haditha, Al-Qaim, Ramadi and Baquba. Meanwhile, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi has reportedly called for war against Shias ahead of next month's referendum. All anti- occupation forces, Sunnis and Shias, religious and secular, have condemned recent attacks on civilians. The AMS said they were "very dangerous", and "playing into the hands of the occupier who wants to split up the country and spark a sectarian war." Sheikh Jawad Al-Khalesi, Imam of Al-Kadhomiyah Mosque, leader of the INFC, even declared that he believed Al-Zarqawi was a US invention. A few weeks ago, 1000 pilgrims lost their lives while heading towards his mosque, after a rumour of an imminent suicide attack caused panic in the crowd. Al-Khalesi said in an interview published in Le Monde newspaper: "I don't think that Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi exists as such. He's simply an invention by the occupiers to divide the people." Al-Khalesi claims that Al-Zarqawi was killed in the Kurdish northern region of Iraq at the beginning of the US-led war on the country as he was meeting with members of the Ansar Al-Islam group affiliated to Al-Qaeda. "His family in Jordan even held a ceremony after his death. Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi is therefore a ploy used by the Americans; an excuse to continue the occupation. It's a pretext, so they don't leave Iraq," he said. At the time of January's polls, the occupation resorted to military means to attain its goals. Large-scale military operations levelled 70 per cent of Fallujah, intimidating the population, preventing whole districts from participating, etc. With this precedent set, it wouldn't be surprising if this draft passes a referendum, amid and despite the opposition of the majority of the Iraqis. However, the mishandling of Hurricane Katrina, the lack of better prospects regarding post-war Iraq, the unprecedented cost of the "war on terror", along with ever-growing casualties, have sparked a wave of dissent in the US, pushing the administration towards alternative strategies. A few rumours on a potential "plan B" are circulating. First of all, to get rid of the actual pro- Iranian government, the Bush administration seems to be promoting a new alliance of pro-US secular Shia with their Kurdish counterparts. A report on a recent meeting between Iyad Allawi, former interim prime minister, Leith Kuba, current government spokesman, and Ahmed Chalabi suggests such a move. Second, as suggested on 4 September by The Sunday Times, it seems that the neo-cons are also looking for an alternate and "honourable" exit plan. A paper by Andrew Krepinevich, a former army officer and counter-insurgency expert, entitled "How to win in Iraq" and published in this month's issue of Foreign Affairs, has become a must-read in Washington, reported The Sunday Times, its author since dropping in on the Pentagon, the CIA and Vice-President Dick Cheney's aides for briefings. Krepinevich calls his proposals the "oil-spot" strategy: "It's like an ink spot. Basically, American forces should stop trying to kill as many insurgents as possible and concentrate on providing security and opportunity to the Iraqis in key 'green' zones such as Baghdad and Mosul. Then, over time, broaden the effort -- hence the image of an expanding oil spot," he says. This strategy would allow a gradual reduction of troops while securing the oil resources. But before this plan can be put into practice, the constitution has to be adopted. As was the case in January, it seems the administration is willing to push it through by way of military means. But, military methods means costs, and it is unlikely that after Katrina's impact, and ahead of next year's congressional elections, Congress would as easily allocate generous additional funds for this controversial enterprise. Recent weeks have proved that the alliance between cross-confessional middle class and poor Iraqis, in addition to the youth, to recover their full sovereignty over their future, their land and resources, is growing stronger and increasingly coordinated. By even pondering resorting to military means to meet its goals, the Bush administration is playing with fire and might spark a national uprising as yet unseen in breadth as a result. * The writer is a member of The Brussels Tribunal's Executive Committee.
