proposed Iraqi constitution threatens bill of rights.

I agree wholeheartedly. This last-minute amendment is the fusion of church and state, not the separation of it. It's saying Islam rules, not the Constitution, and of course, women will be the first victims, to be sure.

I agree wholeheartedly that Bush's planning is totally not up to the task of the shifty Arab world determined to resist him no matter what.

They will not back down, and Bush won't ratchet up to crush them down, so it looks like Iraq is going to become one big quagmire.

We tried this nonsense with the Native Americans, and they resisted no matter how bad things got for them. Iraq will be no different, and they too will end up in one big national reservation as a kind of domestic dependent country within the legal reach of the US.

What bothers me the most about all of this is the gross lack of long-range vision here. People say, oh this will happen, or that will happen while they ignore what IS happening...and that's a recipe for disaster no matter where it is taking place.

And of course, we are totally unprepared for the disaster of our own making here, so I can't see how Bush is ever going to spin this into a wonderful little war like he is already trying to do. America is a pegboy, and has been sitting on that peg for so long now, it can't get off it.

March is ruled by Mars, the god of war, traditionally, so you expect Iraq to heat up soon.

I have known since 2002 that this would happen. Yeah, I'm prescient like that.

This shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody. The delusion that democracy equals westernization and stabilization is a myth that never seems to die, no matter how many times it gets knocked down.

In the Middle East in particular, efforts towards democratization have always ended badly. MIddle Eastern democracy is possible, but it will be radically different from the Western version. The Iraqi's will differ greatly in terms of rule of law, secularism, distribution of authority, and many other fundamental areas.

Ensuring that laws cannot "violate the universally agreed upon tenets of Islam" is going to be the trojan horse that corrupts this system. The only question in my mind is too what extent. Also, I would submit that universally agreed upon laws of Islam are non-existant. The Islamic states themselves differ greatly in intrepretation.

Only one nation actually abides by the Sharia's economic tenets (ie - the elimination of interest rates.) Most Islamic nations, for example Pakistan, use only selected areas of the Sharia, and then only in domestic cases. No nation - not even Saudi Arabia or Nigeria - follows all the codes of the Sharia in all cases. Afghanistan under the Taliban is the only nation in modern history to actually put all the tenets of the Sharia into practice.

This leaves the Iraqi constitution open to everything from the most Taliban-like religious fundamentalist to a quasi-secular regime and everything in between. Which begs the question: If the ostensible purpose of a constitution is to set broad outlines for the government, what use is a constitution which is open to such a range of intrepretation?

This may not be a popular thing to say and the author may be right . However, it is their country and they have the right run as they see fit otherwise they are occupied. Maybe they will correct the mistakes as they go along but it is the Iraqi's who have the right to decide their own fate.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

Iraq is not the United States. Iraq is not owned by the United States. Iraqi's are under no obligation to live according to our laws and values.

Separation of Church and State is part of the US Constitution, and to me it is very important part of our society.

But if the majority of Iraqi's want a government that is based on their religion, so what. Who are we to tell them this is wrong.

Democracy means "Government by the people". Forcing American ideals of government on an Iraqi populace when a significant majority of them disagree seems to go against the very idea of democracy.

The problem is ebrown it that they have no "religion" what the have is a collection of mutually antagonistic sects built around a belief system that has widely varying interpretations. This is similar to Europe in the 16th and 17th century. Replace Sunni and Shiite with Catholic and Protestant, Puritan and Anglican and you have the same situation. The solution to that problem was to take religion out of politics and let them fight it out on their own. This amendment ignore 400 years of western experience with this issue and is a set up for a disaster.

Why should what happened in "Europe" have anything to do with what will happen in Iraq?

What makes you think that the "European" solution will work for them?

Europeans seemed to figure it out on their own (in the 16th and 17th century). It turned out OK (I think). Why shouldn't the Iraqi's be able to go through the same process?

Who said that "western experience" is correct? Did we find the only answer to these problems? Did we even find a good answer?

I think that trying to force a western solution on Iraq against the will of her citizens is foolish.

Doing this in the name of "democracy" is sheer idiocy.

Two reason.

First what you propose is a crude form of determinism. The idea that people cannot learn from the experience of others but only from their own. That to reach an understanding of an issue there are stages of experience that a group must have first. This is false

Secondly, This is not the 16/17th century world. The middle east could ignore the chaos in Europe then, we can not ignore the chaos in the middle east now. The world is much more interconnected and we have the tragedy of 9/11 and the effects of terrorism on our own civil culture to serve as an example.

I am not sure what you mean by your somewhat odd use of the word "determinism". I am suggesting that the Iraqis should be able to determine their own future.

I am not saying that the Iraqi's can not learn from the experience of others.

When I learn from others, I look at what they have done and perhaps I talk to them about their experience. This does not mean I accept their solution wholesale or let them force their solution on me. I may pick and choose parts of what they have done, or I may reject it wholesale.

The Iraqi's should be able to choose their own constitution based on their values and understanding. Of course they should look at our Bill of Rights. But ultimately it's their constitution and they need to decide on witch of our "Rights", if any, they want to base their society.

The US expended "blood and treasury" to give the Iraqi's "liberty" (in addition to finding all of those WMD's).

It seems inconceivable that any form of liberty would not include the ability to choose one's own form of government.

We seek to impose democracy on theocracy, and it isn't going to work any better than the attempt to impose Christianty upon Native American religions.

Islam and Christianity have the same kind of inherent conflict between them that we had with the Native Americans. To impose our way upon them is assimilation, not democracy, and they won't have it. Resistance is not futile.

I agree, allowing for democracy over there means they have the right to set up what they want. Bush isn't about to let them though, and civil war is going to break out instead of rose petals.

So be it. If we are foolish enough to think we can direct the course of the future for this planet, then we deserve bombs blowing up in our face.

The Arab world is already well steeped in the fight to be free from the oppression of the fantastically wealthy kings and dictators - who got that way in no small measure from US purchases of their oil. Now we invade Iraq and say you will be a democracy...they must be horrified because Bush is trying to steal their fire and call it his own.

The Arab world is far from stupid. They once pulled Europe out of the Dark Ages. They have some of the oldest culture on the planet. Bush needs to create a free Iraq before November, and I doubt that is going to happen.

And if not, he SHOULD be yanked out of there to let someone wiser give it a try....not kept in office to finish his lousy, on the cheap, who cares who dies strategy to liberate a people.

Haiti is going to have something to say about all this too, don't doubt it.

Bush is EMPIRE building, not spreading democracy, and I hope you will agree that the two are diametrically opposed to each other.

American fantasy
WASHINGTON The Bush administration plans to put before the next Group of Eight meeting an ambitious program to democratize the ‘‘greater Middle East.’’ Increasingly, the administration has claimed that its reason for invading Iraq was to free the Iraqi people from tyranny and to establish a democratic regime. The frequency with which this rationale has been cited has increased in direct proportion to the waning of the reasons first given for invasion — weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Qaeda. Charles Krauthammer, a columnist and leading neocon ideologue, recently told a Hilton ballroom packed with Bush officials and loyalists, including Vice President Cheney, that the United States needs a vision; that real politics, which builds on raw power, will not do. However, he warned that ‘‘global democratization’’ was too ambitious; the United States should install democracy only ‘‘where it counts’’ – in the Middle East. Yet study upon study has shown how false is the promise to democratize countries with little preparation for democracy, especially if it is done on the run. A study conducted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace found that out of the 18 forced regime changes to which U.S. ground troops were committed, only five resulted in sustained democratic rule. These include Germany, Japan and Italy, in which conditions prevailed that are lacking in large parts of the world; Panama and Grenada, listed as democratized, actually have yet to earn this title. .
The difficulties that the United States and its allies have in democratizing Afghanistan and Iraq are but the most recent examples in a long list of failures, which include Bosnia, Cambodia, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Kosovo, Somalia and South Vietnam..
Democracy is a delicate plant that thrives only if the soil is carefully cultivated. Even an incomplete list of what it takes to secure democracy suffices to show how hollow are promises to mass-produce it. For democracy to take root, there must be a fair level of law and order, economic development and education; a sizable middle class; respect for the rule of law; independent judges; and a rich fabric of voluntary associations. .
Once these are in place, constructing the regime requires political leaders and parties able to compete freely; open and fair elections; separation of powers; a low level of corruption; protection of minority rights; and freedom of association, expression, and the press. I know this is a mouthful, but history has shown that less will not do. .
When many of these factors are lacking, and when big powers are quick to declare victory and go home — especially as elections loom — they lower the definition of democracy, pinning the label on whatever they have concocted. Elections are a frequent fixture of these sleight-of-hand democratizations, disregarding the fact that elections are regularly held in places like China, Iran and Singapore. In Iraq, neither elections nor caucuses Currently the debate about the future of the Iraqi regime is focused on whether direct elections held or caucuses will compose the first government. These debates disregard the fact that in neither case will result in anything resembling democracy. .
At best, the new regime will be a very unsteady coalition. One group, the Shiites, is controlled by mullahs who already govern southern Iraq and will control whoever represents them. their tribe and what policies they will favor. Another group, the Kurds, is controlled by rival tribal chieftains who govern the north. and ‘‘represent’’ it. Together, they control about 80 percent of the population. If they work together, which would be no mean feat, it would be more like a coalition between the church and the mafia in old Sicily than anything resembling a democratic government. .
Assuming that the country will not break up once the Americans recede, the national government of Iraq is more much more likely to be headed by a relatively benign autocrat, à la Vladimir Putin, than by a true representative of the people, accountable to a Parliament and scrutinized by a free press and a free people. Alternatively, Iraq will follow the way that Afghanistan’s ‘‘democracy’’ is evolving — with a weak, imported leader national figure, who cannot rely on his own people even as his bodyguards and barely dares to leave the capital, and with large parts of the country controlled by regional warlords and heads of ethnic tribes. .
A high level of corruption must be expected, as we have seen in the elected Palestinian Authority and already seen among members of the temporary Iraqi government. Although the new Iraqi government may not insist on introduce a strict Muslim regime based on the sharia, it is likely to enforce various Islamic concepts. We have seen this in the way women are treated in the new Afghanistan, despite what it says in its constitution — the appearance of women as singers on national television prompted the new Afghani courts and the culture ministry to demand that these broadcasts cease. Other rights, equally unfamiliar, are not likely to be respected any better for years to come. .
It is better if such governments are not labeled democratic, so that when they lose credibility democracy’s name is not muddied. If we must label such regimes, ‘‘post-tyrannical’’ will do. .
I cannot stress enough my disagreement with those who hold that Arabs are congenitally incapable of democracy. I merely follow a sociological giant, Max Weber, who showed that in some cultures economic and political development is more difficult to achieve than in others. Note that Even in more favorable settings than the Middle East it took a long time to lay the foundation for something that resembles the real thing. After all, British and American democracy did not exactly develop overnight under the tutelage of an alienating foreign power. The occupation of Japan lasted seven years; it took 10 years before full control over foreign relations and trade, industrial production, and military security was turned back over to the Germans. The costs of the Marshall Plan were very hefty indeed, and the willingness of the United States to cough up the dough was much higher as, in those days, foreign aid amounted to 13 percent of the U.S. budget, compared to less than 1 percent today. .
The people of the Middle East, and all concerned with democratization would be best served if the United States and its allies restrained their rhet oric, promised less and delivered more. The most that can be hoped for in the near future is to keep Iraq from falling apart, avoid civil war, provide in the Sunni triangle the level of security already available elsewhere — and let the Iraqi people sort out what regime they are willing to embrace and fight for. Slowly, in time measured in decades rather than years, they may well lay the foundation for a democratic Middle East. .
Amitai Etzioni teaches at George Washington University. His book ‘‘From Empire to Community: A New Approach to International Relations’’ will be published in May.

I agree with unbagog.

We sought to free a people from an evil dictatorship. No we seek to form a governement of the Iraqi people for the Iraqi people. I have no idea where you get the idea about forcing christianity on anyone.



I think you are confused about our goals and ambitions in Iraq. You seem to be under the impression that we have some hidden imperialistic agenda. You are simply wrong. If we were, things would be much different over there and I am sorry you can't see that.



Wrong.



First of all, I am outraged by your wish for further violence in America. Secondly, being free of one dictatorship only to come under the rule of another is no way to live. The uS is far from being the only country to purchase oil from the Middle East and your implication that the US is solely responsible for the situation of the governments of the middle east is farsicle at best.



and they have been stuck in the middle ages since. They have one of the most backwards cultueres in the world. Their refusal to upgrade their technology and culture will be the final straw as the people in those countries finally revolt to get out from under the oppressive rule of Sharia law.

Putting a deadline of November is simply foolish.



Empire building. Sheesh.

Maybe if we had martial law in Iraq and had complete control over everything going on. Forget that we are trying to get a government of Iraqi people to be in control of themselves. Or that there are now far more Iraqi's responsible for internal security...

I think that there are issues that need addressed in Iraq, but I also think that the left has overstated the whole "Empire building" idea.

MC: you need links and authorites to dismiss people's statements. I don't see any.

We most certainly did try to impose Christianity on Native Americans in the 19th century. It backfired.

Native American culture is very much in direct contradiction to European culture, and the same can be said of democracy and Islam.

And Bush absolutely has NO interest in the world's second largest oil fields, eh?

We put democracy into Haiti, and look how that turned out.

Iraq doesn't want democracy, it wants freedom, and there is a big difference in what they call freedom and what we call freedom.

The Ayatollah is already denouncing the interim constitution adopted over there. What makes you think they will all shed their veils and turbans and start wearing dresses and ties? Who are we to tell them how to live, and why on Earth are we even trying. Because we are on a noble quest to open up the world? Or maybe we have vested interests over there that are compelling us to act in our own interest?

I'm well versed in American history and foreign policies that have wrecked so much havoc around the world. If we are so altruistic, how come we are so hated? Hell, even barbaric Rome understood that you have to let the people you conquor live the way they want to, so long as it doesn't butcher the Roman imperial oversight, or cause the resources to stop flowing. Foreigners have been invading the middle east for thousands of years now on and off. How is it we are any different from their perspective?

Call me wrong all you want. But come October, you are going to see horrors over there that make the past year look like a cakewalk. And by next July, you will see civil war breaking out all over Iraq. They don't want to be Americanized, and they will resist no matter what we do to them, just like the Native Americans did, and are still doing.

Our species has laws governing it that supercede any artificial ones we try to impose. Wiping out Iraq won't protect this country from anyone. Hell, we can't even wage war properly. War on the cheap leads to revolts. Try reading up on your own history.

Democracy and Islam are incompatible? Someone better inform Turkey and Indonesia.
Doing research before posting helps save one from looking like a buffon.

Just thinking loud about a county, where the head of state is as well the head of the state church.

And there, they have a "Lord Chancellor" [still, since there un-elected upper chamber didn't want to change this yesterday :wink: ], who simultaneously is a member of all three branches,
- serving as a member of the cabinet (executive branch),
- as the government's leader in the House of Lords (legislative branch),
- and as the head of the country's judiciary (judicial branch).

And yet they think, they live in a democracy, even have a "Bill of Rights" as kind of constitution, are the US' best friend and ally ...

Indonesia is hardly a bastion of democratic virtue. Further, the fact that there is only one truly democratic Islamic nation in the world (Turkey) is not exactly evidence of the compatability of the two ideologies.

I don't think Islam is preventing democracy in the Middle East. But it certainly isn't helping matters.

Not only Islam. Democracy and religion mix about as well as oil and water. For a democracy to succeed it must separate itself from the under the thumb of religion. Note that before the shia signed the proposed constitution they had to get the approval of the Ayatollah our shall we call him dictator.
As an example Iran has all the trappings of democracy however when the reformists began to ask for reforms the religious leaders disqualified them for reelection. As long as the religious leaders have the final say there can be no true democratic system.

That seems to be the case. And it seems to be the direction the US is headed in.

Hobitbob
We hopefully will nip that in the bud by dumping Ayatollah. "Bush"