Say Anything Blog

The Iraqi parliamentary elections take place on December 15. Those elected will have a four-year mandate. This is the most important milestone so far in the fledgling democracy that is slowly but surely taking shape in post-Saddam Iraq.

Over 2000 Americans have valiantly given their lives to get the Iraqi people to this historic point. That the democratic process in Iraq has successfully brought them this far is the undeniable proof that these men and women did not do so in vain. They died so that others may have the opportunity to taste the freedom that Americans so easily take for granted.

The Iraqis, for their part, have braved terrorist threats and attacks to go and have their vote counted. To put this in a perspective that the average American can understand, there are people in the United States who won't go vote if it's raining outside. The Iraqi people, to their immense credit, are holding up their part of the bargain. When they venture out to vote, they honor the sacrifices made on their behalf by American fighting men and women, and they show that they take this precious opportunity very seriously indeed.

Hence, when Chuck Schumer takes it upon himself to go on local New York television and start talking about how he would handle the governance of Iraq, it's kind of a big deal. Here's what he said:

I think it's virtually impossible to govern Iraq as one nation.

When pressed for specifics, Schumer elaborated:

I wouldn't make it into three countries, but I would make it into three autonomous regions, Schumer said during a taping of Sunday Edition with Marcia Kramer. I'd go say to the Kurds up in the north, they're about 25%, you guys govern yourselves. By the way, they'd be pretty democratic. The Kurds [who are also Sunni Muslims] like democracy. They're capable of defending themselves. We wouldn't have to have a troop there. They can defend themselves. I'd say to the Sunnis, the 50% of the people in the [middle] of the country, you go defend yourselves. They will. Schumer added that he would say the same to the Shiites, the 50% in the southern half of the country, you go defend yourselves, and they would too.

Schumer said, We'll say to them you govern your selves. We're not going to tell you who to pick. You govern yourselves. I think that is a plan that could work. And I think it's going to gain currency.�

If Chuck Schumer truly believes a single word of what he's saying, then he is a complete simpleton. The difference between "three countries" and "three autonomous regions" is strictly rhetorical in nature, much like the difference between "gay marriage" and "civil unions." Both are essentially the exact same thing, with one set of words affording more political cover than the other.

If the single, self-governing Iraq is untenable due to sectarian differences as Schumer submits, then why should anyone believe that his solution of partitioning the country into three distinct regions would be any more successful? After all, in the same interview, even concedes that his idea is flawed. The Turks would have problems with what they would undoubtably (and correctly) view as an independent Kurdish state next door. And Schumer also notes that Iran's influence in the Shiite "region" would have to be monitored. The way he presents these things in the interview, however, is very telling (watch the video). He does not spend any time at all addressing the flaws, simply glossing over them as if they are very minor issues, saying only that ways would need to be found to address them.

They are, in fact, significant obstacles.

If any one of the three regions were to become unstable, the threat of civil war would loom as the other two "autonomous regions" move to exert influence over the unstable one. If that were to happen, every bit of progress made so far, every single drop of blood spilled, is wasted.

Of course, for that scenario to occur, Schumer's three-state solution would have to become reality. The only way that could ever begin to happen is if the "One Iraq" democracy fails completely. I can't help but believe that this is what Schumer would love to see, as it would mean that the Administration's policy did not work. He and his cronies in the Democratic party would have ammunition they so desperately seek in their bid try and take back control in Washington. That is, after all, the ultimate goal for Schumer and the glass-half-empty Democrats like him. For them, political victory at home far outweighs the importance of a victory for democracy in Iraq.

Cynics like Chuck Schumer have no faith in democracy. Look again at this statement he made in the interview:

We'll say to them you govern your selves. We're not going to tell you who to pick. You govern yourselves. I think that is a plan that could work. And I think it's going to gain currency.

Senator Schumer is so impressed with his own foreign policy ideas for Iraq that he is blind to the painfully obvious: everything he said is already happening, just not how he wants.

No one is telling the Iraqi people who to pick. Not us. Not the terrorists. Not anyone but themselves. Therein lies the beauty of what is happening in Iraq. The violence the media is so intent on highlighting is mere window dressing. It is not the story.

When the people go vote and emerge with purple fingers, they are showing the world that it is they who are controlling their country's destiny.

On December 15th, they will do so again. How well the people they elect will work together remains to be seen. That they are in a position to work together at all, in the name of a common interest called Iraq, is a massive victory in and of itself.

By supporting the democratic process, the Iraqi people show that they have faith in it. What a pity that Chuck Schumer is incapable of sharing their optimism. Not that it comes as any sort of surprise. The only ballots Chuck Schumer cares about are the ones with his name on them.