this morning i had my pre-syria doctor's appointment. so rather than taking my usual train, i drove out to the travel clinic at a local hospital. i listened to NPR as they reported on the negotiations for an iraqi constitution. with four hours to go before the midnight deadline and no agreement yet, the commentator said there were basically three possibilities of what could happen:
(1) they could extend the deadline for finishing the constitution again (never mind that such an extension is illegal. they've already done it once, why not a second time?)
(2) they could dissolve parliament and call for new elections (that's what the rules said they were supposed to do when they couldn't reach an agreement by august 15th)
(3) the shia arabs and kurds could gang up and force a constitution through over sunni objections. the NPR commentator noted that this was the most dangerous option.
well it looks like they picked door number 3. now we find out if the commentator was right
... or maybe they picked number 1 instead. these people never cease to amaze me. rather than merely picking the "most dangerous option" they seem to have gone for a bizzare hybrid instead which takes all of the worst characteristics of #3 (i.e. pissing off the sunnis) and #1 (i.e. not finishing their negotiations and acting illegally by missing the constitutional deadline), without having the benefits of either.
