I recalled, as I listened to the speakers, that one of the key differences between the participants in today's Iraq and the speakers and listeners at that tent far-across the Atlantic ocean in Michigan is this very fact: American's have historically hardly ever seen their constitution as SIMPLY a piece of paper, i.e. which someone could just walk away from, toss in a trash bin, and do as whatever one wanted with . (The historical exception is occurring during the W. Bush Administration in this 3rd Millennium whereby the document could be simply be tossed away from the public scene and ignored.)
"Abraham Lincoln" reminded the listeners that a constitution is a contract and asked, "What would be the point of two parties signing a document if one party could simply walk away from the document and forget that the document was ever legally binding on him or his community?"
Naturally, a rebuttal from "Jeff Davis", included the charge, "It is historically accurate to say isn't it, that you argued the opposite point of view when speaking on Texas a few decades ago." Over two decades earlier, Lincoln had advocated Texas leaving its union with Mexico.
"Jeff Davis" represented, of course, the southern view, and he was of the mind that the South had bent over backwards trying not to leave the union for over seven decade prior to succession. The speaker argued that the founding fathers, or declarers of independence in 1776 would have approved of the South's determination as a group of states to form a new and more perfect union.
This was a fairly refreshing fictitious and civil debate between "Lincoln" and ""Jefferson" on federalism and what it means to support one's country, one's region, one's tribe or family.
At that moment, I certainly wished that representatives from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Syria, and Iran were present to listen to and comment on the underlying federalist struggle being carried out before me that 25th of August 2007 in the green and tent-filled Cascade Park in Jackson, Michigan.
Perhaps, if the U.S. in April or May 2003 had sat down with all neighboring tribes and local militias under one tent and really discussed what federalism entailed based on prior historical mistakes, wars, and civil war, all parties could have reached a more civil union prior to 2007.
Instead, everyone is remaining in a state of stress and alert that could have been avoided, i.e. fingers are pointing from one Iraqi state to another and from one neighboring state to another-as well as back to occupying U.S.A and Britian.
FEDERALISM
I, myself, have spent the past two decades studying and experiencing federalism in a variety of its forms. I have enjoyed, therefore, not only the opportunity to study federalism in the United States, but I have observed it federatins intimately lived out in the years of working in the United Arab Emirates, Germany and Mexico. Federalism, like democracy itself, is a dirty and messy affair but it may be the best that a mixed group of peoples can ever create.
Besides, as a religious individual, I know that the Middle Eastern tribes invented federalism a long time ago, i.e. in Biblical times. The original twelve tribes of Israel were example of such a federal structure. Therefore, as federalism is a native concept to the Middle East, it can potentially be a quite practical unifying force and form for states and regions. Whether the federal union is made up of states, tribes or emirates is irrelevant. A federal design can be worked out.
Interestingly, one of the most profound modern students of federal theory, Daniel Elazar, noted over two decades ago that almost from the beginning of American Constitutional history, the dichotomy between individual states and federal foreign relations began to break down in the U.S.
Elazar's research and other's governmental analyses or findings over the centuries imply that individual states in a federal system will and do carry out carry out cross border relations. This is part and parcel of a federal system.
So, it should not come as a surprise that states and regions in present day Iraq favor relations with one foreign power over another. Even the Governor George W. Bush in Texas in the 1990s, led his state to promote stronger relations between border states and Mexico.
Elazar also notes that even in the original 18th Century U.S. Constitution, individual states were given specific rights to carry out relations with individual Indian tribes. That is, states or tribes embracing or adjacent (to) individual states have been enabled from conception by the U.S. Constitution to carry out relationships with these neighboring tribes (or intra-regional nations).
Why does it then come as a surprise to Americans and American statesmen in the 21st Century that in the case of Iraq's newly formed federation, cross-border tribes (and relationships among these tribes) and bordering states do, in fact, effect Iraq daily and these same parties will continue to be playing active cross border roles and carrying out cross-border relations with Iraqi states and regions now and in the future?
