When the British were given the mandate to oversee Iraq following the First World War they made the decision to place power leaders from Iraq's Sunni community even though they were clearly a minority group with the territory that would became the country we know today as Iraq. Upon the British withdrawal from Iraq the power structure within Iraq remained skewed in favor of the Sunni's which continued until the 2003 invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein's government by U.S. and British forces. So the question is why based upon this history would the Shiite majority and its leaders want to share power with anyone be they Sunni or former Baathist party members. To further illustrate this point:
Muqtada al-Sadr is the son of Ayatollah Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr and a member of a family that can trace its roots back to Muhammad. In 1999 Muhammad al-Sadr along with Mu'mil and Mustapha, two of his sons were assassinated by members of Saddam Hussein's regime.
Abdul Aziz al-Hakim heads the Iraqi Council of Representatives the largest political party in Iraq and like Muqtada al-Sadr is a prominent Shiite religious leader in Iraq. During the 1970's al-Hakim was imprisoned three times for opposing Iraq's Baathist government before going into exile in Iran in 1980. His father the Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim was assassinated in August of 2003 in Najaf. He is related to the al-Sadr Allowing Iraqi military and police to operate independently and with ``evenhanded enforcement.''family by marriage.
Given their history of personnel and family opposition to Saddam Hussein's Sunni lead government including the killing of family members what possible motivation would either of these men have for supporting any government in which they had to share power with those who oppressed them and Iraq's majority Shiite population.
Iraq's government and the Bench Marks: Following the elections in Iraq the Shiites because of their majority came to dominate government and given their previous status one would conclude that agreeing to these benchmarks would not be a course of action that they would endeavor to pursue.
Benchmarks as set out by the U.S. government
Legislation on ways to restore political, government and military positions to selected members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party.
Why would the Shiites agree to a provision which would, at even a minor level return to power any member of the Baath party?
An oil law to share wealth in ``an equitable manner'' among Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds and other Iraqi groups.
An oil law which gives control of Iraq's oil reserves to the major western oil companies something which no Iraqi should or would agree too.
Allowing Iraqi military and police to operate independently and with ``evenhanded enforcement.
Evenhanded enforcement means what? That all the ethnics groups will live in separate enclaves because the risk of living together is far from safe.
Reducing the level of sectarian violence and eliminating militia control of security forces.
Simply stated because the Shiite and Sunnis seek absolute control of Iraq there is no reason for them give their control of the security forces which they control.
Provide three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support operations in Baghdad.
For the Bush administration this has to be the Freedman unit of its Iraq policy. Meaning that since the disbandment of the Iraqi army by the Coalition Provisional Authority in May of 2003 the Bush administration has always promoted "Once the Iraqi's stand up we will stand down." Except that it hasn't and will not happen until long after American forces have left Iraq.
Review the 2005 constitution and recommend amendments to meet Sunni aspirations.
To meet Sunni aspirations would mean the withdrawal of Shiite power something that is simply not going to happen.
Laws to begin disarming militias and demanding loyalty to the central government.
For the Sunnis it is this provision which they believe will restore them to power. Knowing this the Shiites and Kurds will never agree to it.
As for the American government: Why those in both parties have placed their faith in these benchmarks is beyond logic. Its as though they are using it as a means to show that they are not only willing to support and fight the Global War On Terror but that they are not soft on defense. Unfortunately political expediency does not lead to good governance. Only strong leadership will achieve this.
