Noticed this question and answer from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s recent Princeton speech appearance:
Q4: Do you foresee a possibility of a federal outcome in Iraq, and is the US OK on it?
Dr. Rice: I expect a distribution of power between the center and the regions. The constitution acknowledges a federal system but there’ll be quite a debate as to what it means. Iraq’s neighbors expect a united Iraq but of course in a united Iraq there will be a distribution of powers between the center and the regions. The constitution left the writing of rules to the next assembly, which will be more representative, and then those rules will be written in a way that addresses that certain functions will be reserved to the state. We’ll stand back and let them figure it out.” [emphasis mine]
I figure the speech must have been a good one, since it received so little attention. But this is top-notch.
Many of the same folks who don’t understand why it’s taking so long to build a professional army in Iraq also don’t understand why the process to write, approve, and implement a new Iraqi constitution is taking so long.
What do the two issues have in common? A large group of folks who don’t understand them.
Also, it bears reminding that America’s new constitution went over so well that we threw it out within a few years. And the replacement wasn’t approved until major additions had been tacked on. And even then, of course, the thing wasn’t quite perfect. Two hundred years later, it still isn’t.
(via The Bad Hair Blog)