Biden on Iraq

For Success in Iraq, Change Course

A bit of a mix here by Biden. I think he's a bit too alarmist over the possibility of fractiousness after an October vote on the Iraqi Constitution. But, then again, I tend to agree with the characterization Biden offers of Bush's hope that Sunnis and Iraqi women "get over it" if they vote against it, but not by enough to overturn the constitution. Last I checked, the Sunnis "got over it" when they sat out the elections in December.

That said, I tend to be on the fence as to whether a postponed vote on the Constitution is good or bad. I say that as one who agreed with Bush that the December election date had to be stuck to. But constitutoinal votes aren't yet that significant. Better to get the documentation right according to the parties involved. If another stab at the constitution has to wait till after a new election, I'm not yet seeing that as entirely detrimental.

The rest of the article, however, I have no problem with.

SIDENOTE: John Kay, over at Centerfield, has a few thoughts on the probability of civil war in Iraq that I have to second:

... the only pro-civil-war blocs are the terrorists and the Ba'athists. Only the Ba'athists are sizeable, because Saddam had to have enough supporters to run the country. And I'd guess that only those worried about later prosecution are actively working toward civil war. The call of future generations is powerful if your own existence isn't threatened.

Like Pat Robertson and Tom DeLay here, the media like to report on the extremists because they sell more newspapers.

As tempestuous as the Sunnis have been, I think it's a stretch to say they're ready to give up on the project altogether. The Kurds, however, may be a different story. For now, I'm equating them as something like the Indian tribes in Canada that keep wanting to secede, get enough concessions to be content, and stick around.