Oct. 11, 2005, 11:35PM

Is the White House ready for another bump in Iraq?

By CRAGG HINES
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

SEVERAL twists and turns in post-Saddam Iraq have caught the Bush administration off guard. Which raises the question of whether the White House is prepared for some of the scenarios that could arise from Saturday's vote on that nation's proposed constitution.

It's difficult to find analysts who believe that the document will outright fail adoption. But given the convoluted voting formula, observers who see trouble ahead even if the draft wins are a dime a dozen. A dais-full held forth recently at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

One of the keys is what happens in provinces dominated by Iraq's Sunnis, who are a decided minority but held almost all the power in the three-decade rule of Saddam Hussein.

One problematic scenario has the Sunnis turning out in large numbers to vote against the proposed constitution, but in insufficient numbers to deny it the required regional backing.

Even should a majority of all voters approve the draft, it would fail if two-thirds of voters in at least three provinces turn it down.

A close decision that went against unified Sunni opposition would leave a motivated but frustrated group that has been the source of some of the continuing violence.

"This worries me more than defeat or a big victory," said Rend Rahim, ambassador-designate of Iraq to the United States until a year ago. What happens if there is a large Sunni "no" vote but the document is approved anyway?

The vote comes amid continued fighting. To Kana Makiya, an Iraqi ex-pat who is a professor of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies at Brandeis University, it is "a virulent insurgency whose efficiency is matched only by (its) virulence."

Makiya believes defeat of the proposed constitution is "a slight possibility," but it worries him disproportionately.

"Its failure could lead to outright, open civil war," Makiya said, as opposed to the conflict now, which he calls "a de facto civil war."

Other analysts agree with Makiya about the heightened turmoil that would follow a defeat, and so believe that enough Iraqis will vote "yes."

"I do not see any hesitation in the support," said Munthir al Fadhal, an Iraqi National Assembly member who helped draft the proposed constitution. "There is no other option."

The best face offered on the prospect of a big but unsuccessful Sunni "no" vote was offered by Qubad J. Talabani, representative of the Kurdistan Regional Government to the United States. Sunnis might then mobilize for the December national elections and feel they have a more significant stake in the resulting government.

Hope for approval does not mean the document drew enthusiastic support from the AEI panel. That the proposed basic law is flawed seems without question. And to some, it's more than the eternal question of whether the search for the perfect is the enemy of attaining the good or even merely adequate.

"It is a product of haste, political machinations," both by the Iraqis and American overseers, said Danielle Pletka, AEI vice president for foreign affairs and defense policy. "We cannot resist the temptation to save Iraqis."

Rahim complained that the proposed charter "was not written with a view to the future," not to construct a viable state.

"Today," said Fadhal, "Iraq is a scene for settling accounts."

"Every decision becomes a factional dispute," said Judy Van Rest, executive vice president of the International Republican Institute and a former adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.

Rahim said the proposal "is written as if the central government is going to have real power," which she called a fiction. With an elaborate distribution of power to the regions, when it comes to the central government, "there is almost no there there."

Why such pronounced federalism, asked Fadhal. Because, he said, "one party (government) has proved to be a failure not only in Iraq but in all other Muslim, Arab states."

Fadhal is more concerned about that proposal's large number of impediments to enactment of laws, claiming: "This is a danger for democracy." And there are too many sections dictated by Islamic beliefs and supported by Iran, he said.

Rahim said there are so many ambiguities as to "keep a constitutional court working in overdrive for a long time." And of the seemingly contradictory powers of the Islamic Sharia law and democratic principles: "I do not know what they mean. No one has come forward to explain what they mean."

Talabani argued that the proposed constitution "is probably the best that could be delivered" under the conditions and deadlines that existed and will be a success if it is adopted and "makes everybody almost happy." Including the White House, if this week's vote and the December elections stabilize the situation to any significant degree.

Hines is a Houston Chronicle columnist based in Washington, D.C. (cragg.hines@chron.com)