The new Iraqi constitution is the main issue discussed by various Iraqi groups, with each calling for some changes in the articles of the document that will become the supreme law of the country. The debates are taking place in the Iraqi National Assembly but certain elements, both inside and outside of Iraq, are trying to make amendments to the draft constitution. That is the case of the Wahhabis and Salafis.
These sectarian groups oppose every aspect of the western civilization. This dangerous interpretation of Islam has its main center in the Arabian Peninsula. It is against all new ideas of Islam and opposes any kind understanding with followers of other religions. It is a misinterpretation of the writings of Prophet Mohammed and is one of the main reasons for the current confrontation between the East and the West. This sect, which was limited to the Arabian Peninsula and Afghanistan, has developed in Iraq and carries out suicide attacks. The Salafis, like the Baath Party, think that the Arabs are the world’s master race. The Baath Party is a secular party but Saddam Hussein used Salafi and Wahhabi agents to strengthen the pillars of his government. These groups have attacked western interests and the Shiite Iraqis have changed their goals after the downfall of Saddam Hussein.
They tarnish the image of Islam by carrying out suicide attacks and they cause conflict with the West. Their second objective is to prevent the Shiite Iraqis from attaining their rights and to undermine their efforts to create a religious democracy. They have the support of other Arab countries. It is necessary that Iraq declares a temporary state of emergency to fight these groups.

On June 4th, Jalal Talabani, first democratically elected president of Iraq, attended the inauguration of the Kurdish National Assembly in Erbil. However, in that city of one million inhabitants, you can not see a single Iraqi flag and many parliamentarians that had to swear loyalty to the unity of the Kurdistan region of Iraq dropped the phrase “of Iraq”. Simultaneously, the representative of the Iranian intelligence services in Erbil expressed satisfaction for the assumption of power in Iraq of people supported by Tehran.
George W. Bush has depicted the struggle in Iraq as a battle between freedom-loving Iraqi people and terrorists. However, this interpretation is wrong. There is no Iraqi insurgency but a Sunni Arab insurgency. However, it can not win in Iraq as it will never be able to have the Kurds and Shiites in its ranks. In his June 28 speech, President George W. Bush based his Iraqi strategy in the creation of an Iraqi Army and the writing of a constitution. Building a national army in a country that does not have a shared national identity is a challenge. The Shiites and the Kurds, in many cases with good reason, sometimes suspect that the Sunni Arabs are cooperating with the insurgency and Shiite and Kurdish political officials guarantee their security with their own militia. The Americans do not understand that the Shiites and the Kurds no longer want in their army people associated with Saddam Hussein, who have blood on their hands.
A Shiite list won the Iraqi elections. It included secular Shiites like Ahmed Chalabi, but the real power is in the hands of religious parties. Currently, these parties want to impose an Islamic state making Islam the principal source of law, limiting the rights of women and other religions. The militias of these parties already act as Iranian-style religious police in southern cities. The Dawa Party and the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq promote an Iranian-style political system, supporting Tehran’s interests. Tehran can also rely on its men infiltrated in the Iraqi armed forces. On July 7 Iran and Iraq signed an agreement that would have Iranians train the Iraqi military.
At the same time, the Kurdistan is heading towards its independence. Massud Barzani became the president of the Kurdistan. The Kurdish Parliament also passed a law making him commander in chief of the Kurdish armed forces. However, he is limited by the fact that he can not deploy Kurdistan forces elsewhere in Iraq. In the meantime, the Assembly banned the entry of non-Kurdish Iraqi forces into Kurdistan without its approval. In addition, the Kurds overwhelmingly voted for independence during an informal referendum in January.
The debate about “federalism” is a conflicting point between Kurds and Shiites regarding the independence of Kurdistan. In such circumstances, it is hard to imagine that they will reach an agreement on the constitution any time soon. In this debate, the Kurds are intransigent regarding the secular aspect, the women’s rights and federalism. It would be an irony that they would not be supported by the United States taking into account the objectives they had before the beginning of the war. Theoretically, it would have been possible to see a theocratic constitution imposed in Iraq, except for Kurdistan but L. Paul Bremer thought that it would be obsolete.
Rather than an insurrection, the real danger in Iraq is an Iranian takeover. In order to avoid it, it is necessary to make Iraq a federation with flexible links.

The draft constitution agreed upon by the Shiites and the Kurdish will probably be the text presented to a popular referendum in Iraq but, even if ratified, it is unlikely that it will keep Iraq together.
The reason is that the Arab Sunni minority will do everything to sabotage any document that will make its loss of power official. The insurgency is only one of its weapons; other include boycotting elections, terrorizing the population and all government agencies, hitting Shiite holy shrines and Kurdish organizations. There is every reason to believe that the Sunnis will continue doing so. But looking at the text itself it is clear that it has no chance of ever being implemented.
It has 153 articles (20 times longer than the US Constitution) and most of them are merely a politically correct wish list, probably suggested by American advisors. These articles have little connection with Iraqi realities. The document is full of contradictions. The text stipulates in the same article that no law can be passed that contradicts the rules of Islam and that no law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy. In addition, the articles turn regional authorities into institutions that can amend the implementation of federal laws. Likewise, it establishes the creation of representatives of the different regions within the Iraqi embassies thus creating sub-embassies within the embassies.
In fact, this constitution brings about the end of Iraq as it has existed since 1920. The disintegration of Iraq is bound to continue.

Iraqi leaders have a tentative constitution but they have not answered a fundamental question: Does Iraq really exist as a nation? The Kurds and Shiites negotiate between them leaving the Arab Sunnis aside which increases divisions. Washington wants to build a new Iraq but it spends blood and money to preserve a country that no longer exists. Iraq would be closer to democracy if everyone would reject the fiction of a unified Iraq. However, the United States finds it hard to admit that countries disintegrate. Washington resisted the collapse of the Soviet Union into separate republics and today it is trying to hold Afghanistan – and also Iraq – as one country. However, that policy already failed in Haiti and in Somalia. The only exception is Yugoslavia.
Since 1945, democratization has been accompanied by an increase in the number of countries. There are more democracies and there are more states. Economists say that it is hard to preserved larger states united and that they are useful to guarantee security. When the threat of wars among nations recedes and commercial agreements develop, the number of states increases. By supplying security and supporting free trade in Iraq, the United States are promoting the fragmentation of the country.
The difficulties that have plagued the creation of an Iraqi constitution should make the United States reconsider its policy in Iraq. The fact that the United States became a nation through a constitution does not mean that it should become a general rule.

The agreement on the Iraqi draft constitution should have been a reason to celebrate but it was not the case. On the contrary, criticism has emerged about issues like women’s rights, federalism and the role of Islam. In fact, the text makes a good balance between federalism and centralization and between Islam and democracy.
However, the problem is not the text but those who support it. The Sunnis feel they have been left aside and they could make the process fail. However, the Iraqis can be proud of this constitution that guarantees equal rights for all citizens and places, Islamic and democratic values in the same level. Nonetheless, the more troublesome issues are left for the Constitutional Court that should settle the differences between federal directions and the central power and between Islam and democracy.
Some critics fear that certain regulations could allow the Shiite South to separate. Shiite leaders use that threat but they would only do it to obtain additional concessions. Nevertheless, this fear increases the fear of the Sunnis. In addition, the US’s insistence in having the constitution ready for a set date reduced the possibilities of reaching an agreement with the Sunnis. Placing the Sunnis in a Writing Committee ad then pressuring them to reach a quick agreement was a bad strategy. The worst thing that could happen now would be that the Constitution were ratified in spite of the large Sunni rejection.

On April 2003, just after having finished combats in Iraq, George W. Bush promised the Iraqis that their country would develop preserving its unity, independence and sovereignty, but after two years and 4 months, Iraqis have understood that Bush’s promises were but castles in the air. On the other hand, the new constitution submitted to Iraq’s Parliament makes legal the collapse of a country that for years was a stronghold for strategic balance and stability in one of the hottest and most interesting regions in the world, because of its oil reserves. The Bush administration justified its occupation wielding a number of reasons, among which the most relevant one was changing Saddam’s regime. However, it has been proved that Bush not only planned to change the regime in that country but also Iraq’s geography and demography. All this within the frame of a well-devised strategy: dividing the nation in the interests of globalization, for economic and security supremacy in the world.
The United States has always used its division strategy – directly or indirectly – whenever it has intervened in any place around. Iraq cannot be an exception. U.S. interventions caused the USSR to collapse and further divide. The same thing happened to Yugoslavia, Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan and currently to Iraq. The United States has foreseen a retreat program that should begin next year, basically before the Congress election in November. This retreat will be preceded by the division of the country into three parts: a Kurdish state north, Chi’ite south and Sunite central. In practice, this will put an end to resistance, or at least will weaken it so that the rest of the occupation forces might easily withdraw.
The division is socio-cultural too. For instance, the marriage between Chi’ites and Sunnites, Arabs and Kurds or various other communities is no longer possible; it was once a symbol of Iraq’s unity prior to the occupation. The division virus will certainly affect the neighboring countries. What is currently happening in Saudi Arabia clearly depicts the existing situation in the region. The federal system in charge of restoring the new constitution is the first of a kind in the Arab-Muslim World. Bush has rated the constitution project as a “victory” of democracy, emphasizing that Iraqis and the whole world must feel proud of such a constitution. Bush’s statement is not surprising, essentially because he has not stopped begging the Iraqi parties to ratify their constitution bill before the deadline. Otherwise, his plan of escape from Iraq will not be performed at the desired time.