As we can see now, Iraq, as it is currently formulated, is ungovernable. The different ethnic and religious factions not only have little in common, but they in many cases hate each other for reasons that outsiders have trouble fathoming.
And yet the country has enviable natural resources, a great location in the world, a good population, and one would hope, a desire for peace.
Several years ago, when the Iraqis were in the process of developing and writing their nation's new "constitution," I believed that they truly needed to look no further than the United States Constitution for an example.
If you read the U.S. Constitution with no pre-conceived notions, and are able to forget the cluster-fuck that it has become, you will see a document that seeks to gather together a number of DIFFERENT AUTONOMOUS STATES.
When we use the word, "state" now, we think of nothing more than subdivisions of a large overwhelming "country," but that is not what was on the minds of the Founding Fathers. They knew that "States" were more like little independent countries - self governing, with their own constitutions reflecting how those States wanted to govern themselves.
Articles I, II, and III describe a national government that does ONLY THE THINGS THAT ARE MORE CONVENIENT WHEN DONE AT A CONSOLIDATED LEVEL. Read Section 8 of Article I very closely. The national government was formed to PERFORM SERVICES for the various states - services like negotiating treaties with foreign countries, printing money, maintaining a standing army and navy, providing a patent and trademark office, regulating commerce BETWEEN the states. Commerce WITHIN the states was up to each state to decide for itself. Criminal codes within the states are set by the states themselves. Law enforcement was up to each individual state.
Then the Tenth Amendment makes it clear that EVERYTHING NOT SPECIFICALLY RESERVED TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, is up to the states.
Again, ignoring what the U.S. Constitution has become in this country, is this not the ideal prescription for a viable Iraq? There could be one or more Kurdish states, one or more Shia states, one or more Sunni states, and possibly a "Federal District" of Bagdad, independent of any individual state. Each of the states would be run independently, with its own laws, courts, police forces, and so on, and they would have representatives in the overall Congress, but basicaly, the national government would have LIMITED POWERS, and mainly be providing SERVICES that benefit the various states equally.
The main problem that is tearing the country apart is that it is being run as a single country, dominated by the majority Shia, and the Kurds and Sunni find this intolerable.
I wonder if Maliki has a "Suggestion Box" anywhere.
And yet the country has enviable natural resources, a great location in the world, a good population, and one would hope, a desire for peace.
Several years ago, when the Iraqis were in the process of developing and writing their nation's new "constitution," I believed that they truly needed to look no further than the United States Constitution for an example.
If you read the U.S. Constitution with no pre-conceived notions, and are able to forget the cluster-fuck that it has become, you will see a document that seeks to gather together a number of DIFFERENT AUTONOMOUS STATES.
When we use the word, "state" now, we think of nothing more than subdivisions of a large overwhelming "country," but that is not what was on the minds of the Founding Fathers. They knew that "States" were more like little independent countries - self governing, with their own constitutions reflecting how those States wanted to govern themselves.
Articles I, II, and III describe a national government that does ONLY THE THINGS THAT ARE MORE CONVENIENT WHEN DONE AT A CONSOLIDATED LEVEL. Read Section 8 of Article I very closely. The national government was formed to PERFORM SERVICES for the various states - services like negotiating treaties with foreign countries, printing money, maintaining a standing army and navy, providing a patent and trademark office, regulating commerce BETWEEN the states. Commerce WITHIN the states was up to each state to decide for itself. Criminal codes within the states are set by the states themselves. Law enforcement was up to each individual state.
Then the Tenth Amendment makes it clear that EVERYTHING NOT SPECIFICALLY RESERVED TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, is up to the states.
Again, ignoring what the U.S. Constitution has become in this country, is this not the ideal prescription for a viable Iraq? There could be one or more Kurdish states, one or more Shia states, one or more Sunni states, and possibly a "Federal District" of Bagdad, independent of any individual state. Each of the states would be run independently, with its own laws, courts, police forces, and so on, and they would have representatives in the overall Congress, but basicaly, the national government would have LIMITED POWERS, and mainly be providing SERVICES that benefit the various states equally.
The main problem that is tearing the country apart is that it is being run as a single country, dominated by the majority Shia, and the Kurds and Sunni find this intolerable.
I wonder if Maliki has a "Suggestion Box" anywhere.
