Posted on 09/19/2005 1:04:05 AM PDT by Crackingham
President Bush repeatedly has likened Iraq's constitutional controversy to the one that raged when the Founding Fathers gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 to debate what would become the U.S. Constitution. But for some of Mr. Bush's political allies, it is the differences between the two documents that matter, not the similarities.
As the Bush administration's Iraq strategy enters a crucial period that is meant to culminate in two elections and set the stage for a military withdrawal, the White House's public-relations push is being complicated by the surprising anger the constitution is sparking among Republicans and others normally supportive of President Bush. The critics have expressed alarm about the provisions concerning women's rights, the role of Islam in Iraqi daily life and the deference accorded to Shiite clerics with close religious and cultural ties to neighboring Iran.
SNIP
In a recent post on National Review Online's group Web log, editor Jonah Goldberg stressed the importance of women's rights in a democratic Iraq and said that "for the U.S. to countenance something else would be a breach of faith with enormous political consequences as well."
In a letter late last month to President Bush, meanwhile, Republican Rep. Kay Granger of Texas, joined by Democratic Rep. Ellen Tauscher of California, expressed "deep concern" that the draft constitution "holds the potential for codifying discrimination against women as well as limiting fundamental human rights for all Iraqis in a manner that may threaten the growth of democracy and freedom in Iraq."
The lawmakers said they are especially concerned by provisions mandating that "no laws may contradict the fixed principles of Islam" and creating a supreme court composed of experts in Islamic law that will have the power to strike laws down as unconstitutional.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Suddenly the critics of the war are worried about women's rights...
No such worry when the rape and torture rooms were still open.
Hey, what rights did women have in America in 1790?
Your comment leads me to believe you never heard the old addage:
Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
One of the wonderfull things about civilization is supposed to be the shortening of the learning curve, such that each new group need not start at the mouth of the cave and work their way upward.
Would you have them institute slavery too, just to make their learning complete?
It greatly varied from state to state. Women could vote in some states, and not in others. I vaguely recall that there was one state that didn't allow women to hold real estate unless there were no male relatives available or something bizzare, but I could be mistaken.
Keep them in the kitchen where they belong.
The point of my rhetorical question was that women did not always have the freedom and liberties they have today. It took a long time and multiple generations of leaders to pave the way for the philosophical and cultural changes that created the America we live in today.
The Middle East is still in its infancy in regards to the advances and progress in human freedom and liberty. Iraq is probably one of the most progressive of the Arab/Muslim nations, and much of its progressiveness were cultural grafts due to the secular, dictatorial regime, rather than as an outgrowth from the local culture.
I believe that when push comes to shove women's freedoms will be preserved in Iraq, but that the change in perceptions is going to take a generation or two to take root. Violence against liberal women will be prevalent, just as disdain and outright bigotry was evident against mixed race couples in the United States.
How much can a third party (country) learn from the mistakes and progress of another country? How does one transition from a authoritarian government to a liberal democracy?
Iraq has its own mistakes to learn from, and it is going to make some entirely new ones before it is done, but I think in the end it will succeed in forging a stable and prosperous democracy.
First let's remember that MacArthur eventually had to foist a constitution on the Japanese who were incapable of transitioning to the modern world by themselves. Contrast that with what is perceived as doable diplomatically today in Iraq.
The Iraq War is one gigantic politically correct police action from top to bottom. Since we never totally destroyed the existing political structure (too messy and violent), all efforts at nation building are in vain.
This article is further evidence that a "multicultural" USA cannot impose its political will on those it defeats in war. Because imposing a political will means imposing a superior political culture. And today we do acknowledge through the dogma of multiculturalism that there is no such a thing as a superior culture except for a fuzzy global version of "democracy" (democracy being a term that does not appear anywhere in the US Constitution).
Another related bellweather is the continued existence on planet earth of Saddam Hussein. He should have swung in the gallows already. 50-50 he'll still be breathing in 2010. This is a major red flag. Can we all see what's going on here?
We as "victors" in Modern War pay the price of war in blood and treasure yet do not reap the spoils of war. As reward for our efforts in Iraq we are expected to swallow a Sharia Islamic democracy. Please stop and think for a minute how absurd this situation is.
In the not so distant past the USA as victor would 1) hang the defeated regime's leaders 2) dictate the new political landscape 3) leverage the country's resources in our favor etc.
These are the deserved and righteous spoils of war. It is undoubtably a paper tiger that pays higher gas prices after $300 billion spent plus tens of thousands of casualties in oil rich Iraq.
Let's do the math here. Either we acknowledge that 1) as a post-modern multicultural society we refrain from conducting warfare as we are unlikely to benefit from it in any meaningful way or 2) we end our post-modern multicultural society and resume prosecuting wars and securing victory in "brutal" self-interest.
You're preaching the choir here... :-)
Not intentionally. You were just at the end of the posts when I wrote mine. But great minds DO think alike.
well said. Thats the thing about liberty, they are free to choose. As much as we would like to micro-manage what they do, we cannot. If we believe in democracy enough to fight for it, we have to be willing to trust in it to work out whatever issues arise over time.
Well said!
"Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them." - George Santayana
"History's most important lesson . . . is that man has not learned much at all from history" - Aldous Huxley
"What experience and history teach is this — that people and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted on the principles deduced from it." - G.W.F. Hegel
"History is more or less bunk" - Henry Ford
Any article that concerns critics, experts and "a fair number of Republicans" will raise a yellow flag with me (plus some chuckles).
All of the naysayers said it would be impossible to get to this point. To quote Homer J. Simpson: "Wrong again, Liberal Media".
This reminds me of when Rummy had to take Hillary to the woodshed and explain to the Smartest Woman Alive that you weren't going to be successful on the first attempt when trying to shoot a missile out of the sky.
It's just one of the many, many problems with liberalism: if you can't do something absolutely perfect on the first try, then you shouldn't do it at all.
Is it THEIR constitution or OUR Constitution?
If it is agreed upon by them and works for them, so be it.
Different culture, different religeon, (though 99% similar) different circumstances.
I have a copy of the Iraqi Constitution:
Chapter Two: Rights and Freedoms
Article 14: Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination because of SEX, ethnicity, nationality, origin, color, religion, sect, belief, opinion or social or economic status.
Article 15 : Every individual has the right to life and security and freedom and cannot be deprived of these rights or have them restricted except in accordance to the law and based on a ruling by the appropriate judicial body.
For all the critics of the Iraqi Constitution, please read it before pontificating about it. It may not be perfect, but it is damn good {especially for a nation that has never known democracy}.
Yhe Iraqi Constitution can be amended.
They had to start from a position that had a chance to be accepted by it's Muslim citizens.
Otherwise, it wasn't going to pass, and then it would be a rallying point for all Bush haters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.