[quote]BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. diplomats have conceded ground to Islamists on the role of religion in Iraq, negotiators said on Saturday as they raced to meet a 48-hour deadline to draft a constitution under intense U.S. pressure.
U.S. diplomats, who have insisted the constitution must enshrine ideals of equal rights and democracy, declined comment.[/quote]
[quote]Shi’ite, Sunni and Kurdish negotiators all said there was accord on a bigger role for Islamic law than Iraq had before.
But a secular Kurdish politician said Kurds opposed making Islam “the,” not “a,” main source of law – changing current wording – and subjecting all legislation to a religious test.
“We understand the Americans have sided with the Shi’ites,” he said. “It’s shocking. It doesn’t fit American values. They have spent so much blood and money here, only to back the creation of an Islamist state … I can’t believe that’s what the Americans really want or what the American people want.”[/quote]
So, now we get to hear how America has fought, and is winning, the war to spread the theocracy of Islam throughout the Middle East? The world?
As much as I often suspect the Kurds of being devious and underhanded, I must admit, I think they hit the nail on the head when the say they doubt that an Islamic state in Iraq is what America wants as an end result. It appears that is exactly what is happening.
Well, I don’t think the majority of Americans who voted for W in 2004 had any clue that their vote would be used to: [ul]1. Establish a theocracy in the ME,
2. Said theocracy would be an Islamic one,
3. Built by virtue of American blood, and
4. US taxpayer dollars, to be paid almost exclusively by
5. Future generations of Americans who will likely enjoy the “fruits” of said Islamic theocracy.[/ul]
In short, this would seem to be another natural place for any remaining Bush cultists to withdraw their support, the latest in a long line of such stepping-off points. (by the way, isn’t it an article of faith among neocons that wherever Islam flourishes then the export of terrorism follows? )
[quote=“flike”]Well, I don’t think the majority of Americans who voted for W in 2004 had any clue that their vote would be used to: [ul]1. Establish a theocracy in the ME,
2. Said theocracy would be an Islamic one,
3. Built by virtue of American blood, and
4. US taxpayer dollars, to be paid almost exclusively by
5. Future generations of Americans who will likely enjoy the “fruits” of said Islamic theocracy.[/ul][/quote]
And how in the world could anyone explain that to the family of a soldier who died in Iraq such that the loss of the soldier seems a sacrifice for the greater good?
People need to feel comfortable and safe primarily. As much as I personally would prefer not to see a theocracy come out of the consitutional talks in Iraq, maybe it would actully be more helpful to the Iraqis.
Hopefully, if a theocracy DOES develop, it will have enough seeds of democracy planted within it, like consitutional elections for all adults (no one man, one vote, one time) that a purer form of Deomocracy may evolve later on.
It is impossible to assume the Iraqis will jump into a US style Democratic government. They aren’t ready for it. It would be like trying to make Hanoi in an Asian Financial hub. There are steps to go through, infrastructure to build, people to educate.
Do I think Iraq was hand picked? Yes. Why? Because Saddam created an anamoly in the Middle East, a SECULAR Islamic country.
Do you think a secular Islamic country, that writes a theocratic consitution will be as right wing as, say Iran, Syria or Suadi Arabia?
I think this is the first step. And the process as a whole is a long, long way from over.
I really don’t see the problem with this. It’s going to be the case no matter whether the Iraqi Constitution states “Islam” or “nebulous secular humanism”, because the people writing and implementing and enforcing the laws are going to be basing their actions on what they believe in anyway.
It’s all a sham, like the constant moaning about the “religious right” in the U.S. While there are occasional abuses, they tend to get corrected pretty quickly, because nobody WANTS a religious dictatorship. Iran’s was imposed because the leftist groups that overthrew the Shah fell to fighting amongst themselves, and believed that Khomeini could be controlled by the winning faction. Most people were pretty shocked when it turned out that he was ruthless enough to destroy the leftists and impose his own vision. And aside from a small proportion of fanatics who benefit from the current system there – the religious leaders, some thugs who would find a way to join the Gestapo in any dictatorship – nobody wants or likes the current government there. Go find a copy of Reading Lolita in Tehran to see what life is like there.
We should have just let Iran win the Iran-Iraq war back in 1988 because the results would have been about the same: a pro-Iranian Shiite majority Islamic theocracy in Iraq. It would have just saved us all the lost American lives and wasted money.
Then we could have gone in during the chaotic aftermath following Saddam’s overthrow and set up a few “enduring bases” to “stabilize the situation” and declared “Mission Accomplished.”
I seriously doubt that the Shias of Iraq and Iran are going to unite any more than the French and Spanish Catholics would have United 200 years ago. Yawn. Next.
A shame, however if that’s what the majority of Iraqis want, then well, not much to do.
My personal take is that we will see a guided democracy, where the parliament and the president will be overseen by the supreme court, which will get their inputs from a “Council of guardians” style gathering of elderly mullahs.
Not too different from Iran, actually.
At least this shows that the US is able to live with theocracies in the middle east. The next step should therefore be to get some kind of reconciliation with Iran, as well, you can’t really criticize them for a government form whose nearly identical twin you just helped set up next door.
[quote=“Mr He”]A shame, however if that’s what the majority of Iraqis want, then well, not much to do.
My personal take is that we will see a guided democracy, where the parliament and the president will be overseen by the supreme court, which will get their inputs from a “Council of guardians” style gathering of elderly mullahs.
Not too different from Iran, actually.
At least this shows that the US is able to live with theocracies in the middle east. The next step should therefore be to get some kind of reconciliation with Iran, as well, you can’t really criticize them for a government form whose nearly identical twin you just helped set up next door.[/quote]
[quote=“spook”]
“Two critical questions have not yet been resolved: whether to allow clerics to sit on the Supreme Court, and how much authority clerics will have in resolving family disputes like divorce and inheritance.”[/quote]
Oh well, however the islamists have got the constitution changed in their favor. God knows what will happen once the US troops pull out - constitutions can be amended by or simply thrown out.
Also, merely by allowing islamic law in, you open a pandoras box of future issues.
First of all, if you are a good conservative muslim, then well… Your imam or Mullah or whatever the cleric is called will always have the primacy in any struggle between secular and religious interpretations of different laws, as you as a muslim is obliged to listen. Secular law is subservient to Sharia.
Secondly, sharia is to be interpreted by clerics, not by lawyers. Whenever in doubt over a principal precedence making interpretation you ask a cleric, not a judge - and the judge will have to take heed of the official clerical position. After all there’s not the same separation between religion and state in the islamic world as there is in the west.
Therefore, the finer points of the constitution are not all that important, as long as “sharia is recognized as the major influence on Iraqu laws”. A non-government council of most or all top clerics will in fact carry close to the same power over the legislation and the application of laws as the Council of Guardians have in Iran.
A good read on this topic in the New York Review of Books, by Peter Galbraith, former US Ambassador to Croatia. He’s got experience in the area, having uncovered and documented the Anfal campaign against the Kurds while working for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
[quote=“Peter Galbraith”]On June 4, Jalal Talabani, president of Iraq, attended the inauguration of the Kurdistan National Assembly in Erbil, northern Iraq. Talabani, a Kurd, is not only the first-ever democratically elected head of state in Iraq, but in a country that traces its history back to the Garden of Eden, he is, as one friend observed, “the first freely chosen leader of this land since Adam was here alone.” While Kurds are enormously proud of his accomplishment, the flag of Iraq
Not ideal. However, even with the idea of “all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights”, it has taken the US how long to get to where we are now?
Once again, what some of you refer to as mediocrity and as failings might well be better than anything in the past for these folks and might well provide a base for future improvements.
You can allege lowered standards and expectations all you want… but, perhaps yours (and Bush’s) expectations were too high to begin with.
Lasting progress usually takes place in small incremental steps. Great revolutions often fail or suffer from counter-revolutions.
As the Grateful Dead used to sing…
[quote=“The Grateful Dead in The Wheel”]
Won’t you try just a little bit harder
Couldn’t you try just a little bit more
Won’t you try just a little bit harder
Couldn’t you try just a little bit more
Round, round, Robin run around
Gotta get back where you belong
Little bit harder, just a little bit more
Little bit further than you gone before
Small wheel turning by the fire and rod
Big wheel turning by the grace of God
Every time that wheel turn round
Bound to cover just a little more ground
[/quote]
An interesting–and for me, surprising–follow up to the article I posted by Peter Galbraith.
[quote=“David Brooks, New York Times”] President Bush doesn’t lack for critics when it comes to his Iraq policies, but the smartest and most devastating of these is Peter W. Galbraith, a former United States ambassador to Croatia.
Yesterday, after reading gloomy press accounts about the proposed Iraqi constitution, I thought it might be interesting to hear what Galbraith himself had to say. I finally tracked him down in Baghdad (at God knows what hour there) and found that far from lambasting Bush, Galbraith was more complimentary about what the administration has just achieved than anybody else I spoke to all day.
“The Bush administration finally did something right in brokering this constitution,” Galbraith exclaimed, then added: “This is the only possible deal that can bring stability. … I do believe it might save the country.”
Galbraith’s argument is that the constitution reflects the reality of the nation it is meant to serve.[/quote]
I think it boils down to this – they simply will not have the rule of law, in the way that phrase normally applies in much of the civilized world. I’m probably missing the fine points, but from where I stand, a theocracy looks like a dictatorship.
[quote=“WSJ editorial”]Iraq’s Federalist Papers
The constitution empowers legislators, not clerics.
Thursday, August 25, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
Iraq’s first freely elected government continues to vindicate the belief that the Mideast can be transformed, starting with Saddam Hussein’s former tyranny. Its draft constitution, which appears headed for parliamentary approval tonight, reflects a remarkable spirit of compromise–and even enlightenment–among the country’s political, ethnic and religious factions.
The word “compromise” is key here. If we were drafting the document, there are many things we might have done differently. But the point of democracy is that countries have to find their own way on difficult issues. Americans also shouldn’t be too quick to conclude that anything that sounds odd or unfamiliar to liberal ears is evidence of failure. While this constitution does indeed contain general appeals to religion, it is fundamentally a document that empowers legislators, not clerics.[/quote]
)
