Quick, how can we blame this on The Left™?

I'm not as pessimistic about this development as you are. I suspect the Islamists were holding out for "the" main source, rather than "a" main source, which suggests there are other sources of law than Islam. However, I don't speak Arabic so I don't even know if they distinguish between definite and indefinite articles (some languages, e.g. Slavic languages, don't even have articles.)

The big question all along has been this: Can Islam and democracy coexist? If it can then the future will look a lot brighter. We're going to find out the answer soon enough.

I'll wait until it's voted on before I become pessimist or not.

The problem is that if you give people freedom, they may choose to fling themselfs off the cliff. Some beacuse they don't care, others because they think it is a good idea, and some because it will give them power (especially if they aren't included in the cliff flinging thing).

I figure it will take a few incarnations to get it right. Before this thing I had not really looked into our own, or other stable govts, foundings. It is amazing what most went through before finding a stable form of govt. It wasn't that I was not interested, I would have found it fascinating anytime. Just that for this element of our founding one has to search for and isn't stressed. At best I knew a single sentance "We were a confederation before a republic" - but that's like say "Mt Everest is hard to climb" - technically correct but missing SOOO much.

Personally I think leaving off the hardships that our ancestors went through are causing more of the problems we have today than anything. I don't mean left or right politics, I mean general societal problems. My parents own a company, it's hard to find good workers. The last few places I've worked are always surprised at what I am willing to do. I can't tell you how many young ones (I use that term loosely, I'm 30 and there are plenty my age also) seem to think they should be making what thier parents - who have been working for 20+ years - are making. Everything easy right now and if not, then society has failed us. sigh it's not that bad and there is some railing there (technically true, but ignoring quite a bit of stuff), but I can very much see it going there pretty rapidly. Nor am I immune, I still find myself comfortable in my own ignorance from time to time, never even remotely questioning that part of my beliefes.

I expected something easier before going in, and now expect something harder than what we are seeing. I still think it's worth it though.

Remember that everyone's favourite new democracy - Afghanistan - has a constitution that pretty much says the exact same thing :

While the draft outlaws discrimination on the basis of religion and sex, and professes adherence to international human rights standards, these provisions are subject to the stipulation that they cannot be contrary to an undefined "sacred religion of Islam...." The constitution does not say what the principles of Islam are.

Yet, so far so good. Let's face it, there was no way that Islam wasn't going to get a mention in the Iraq constitution. Still, while I'm always nervous when I see the words "constitution" and "Islam" in the same sentence, I'm cautiously optimistic that this won't be another Iran, but it sure as hell won't be Holland either.

Michael,

I see your concern, but I don't think it's as bad at the point as you fear. As you pointed out, the Iraqi people have yet to ratify the Constiitution, and it's still a draft. There's still time for the theocratic forces to be restrained, and for pluralism and liberal ideas to provide a check.

Let’s swallow a chill pill and see what ultimately happens. The language of the document is likely to be somewhat ambiguous so that the Islamic religious leaders can save face. I suspect that there will be more then sufficient wiggle room to protect the rights of the secular inclined majority.

Is it me, or are we being a bit...hippocritical when we get upset at a nation/people who, for the first time in a long time, get to vote freely, and choose a different path than we would like them too?

"Thats not the type of Democracy we want you to practice!" Sort of thing.

I don't think there is any reason to be optimistic or pessimistic about the constitution. What kind of law Iraqis live under will depend on where they at in the country. Shia areas will enforce Islamic law, the kurdish areas will be more secular. The Sunni areas are a question mark.
Frydek-Mistek

I'm not as pessimistic about this development as you are. I suspect the Islamists were holding out for "the" main source, rather than "a" main source, which suggests there are other sources of law than Islam. However, I don't speak Arabic so I don't even know if they distinguish between definite and indefinite articles (some languages, e.g. Slavic languages, don't even have articles.)

No, americanineurope, you are correct, “a” vs. “the” is a major point of contention, and “a” is definitely better than “the.” There’s a RAND paper explaining how a constitution which acknowledges Islam to some extent can avoid descending into theocracy here. The structure and role of the judiciary is also very important in addition to the wording articulating the status of Islamic law and international human rights norms. I find it hard to know what to think about it until the full draft is available to read.

"...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude

--And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence..."

We all know where those lines can be found. Remember, their constitution isn't being written for us; there are domestic political considerations involved. I wouldn't panic yet. I don't see how they could form a consesus government without some nod to Islam.

Hm, the link I posted above doesn't seem to work. Trying again: http://www.rand.org/publications/CF/CF186/CF186.pdf

"Instead of that liberty which takes root and growth in the progress of reason, if recovered by mere force or accident, it becomes with an unprepared people a tyranny still of the many, the few, or the one." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1815. ME 14:245

Well in perfect world, it would have been pleasant for all the Islamists to have magically vanished from Iraq sometime in 2003. I certainly had my fingers crossed.

However, it appears that the dawn of Aquarius will have to wait for yet another tomorrow. In the world we are stuck with, Islam is still THERE,and with it the attendent cadre of true believers who are convinced that all human affairs can be reduced to spiritual guidance(however retrograde that guidance might be at times).

Therefore since history more or less indicates that without a generational committment, it is almost impossible to 'graft' on a 'foreign' concept and expect it to survive in the long-term, we really have no choice but to count on an 'internal' reformation in Islamic thought. Iraq might well devolve into Iran, but that will surely be the start of a regional WAR of attrition as no-one else but the Shiites will be enamoured of another Shiite theocracy in the area. Iraq could also be the testing ground for new ways to apply Islamic thought to MODERN life.

We just don't know but there is no time like the present to find out. As others have said; you really can't prevent someone from throwing themselves over a cliff. You can hold them back for a period but as soon as your back is turned--- Look Ma, I Can Fly !! !! I just don't see too many Iraqis lined up just desperate to accomplish that goal. There must be a way for Islam to 'play nice' with its fellows. If not either Islam or the 'fellows' will eventually have to go. Iraq is as good a place as any to see if that mutual tolerance is possible even in an Islamic Republic.

Michael -- "U.S. diplomats foolishly conceded ground to the Islamists in order to get a constitution draft out “on time.”

Uh, I didn't know that U.S. diplomats were supposed to be negotiating the Iraqi constitution? I thought that was a job for Iraqis.

David Thomsen -- "rights of the secular inclined majority."

I see no evidence that the Kurds plus secular Arabs make up anything approaching a majority.

everyone's favourite new democracy

you're kidding, right?

So long as the final draft of the constitution doesn't get too specific about what constitutes "principles of the rules of Islam" things can still work out well.

This isn't a particularly good development, but its not cause to get depressed about the future just yet.

Michael, I remember a post you put up about an evening spent with Christopher Hitchens. During the course of the evening, Hitchens says something like the Allies have the right to stop Iraq from becoming an Islamist through force, after all the treasure and lives spent on making Iraq a modern state.

If I recall, an Iraqi with you guys took umbrage at that suggestion, saying that if a democratic Iraq decided to be based in Sharia, Americans could do nothing about it.

What are your thoughts on the subject now? Do we have the right to forcibly stop Iraq from becoming a Sharia state, and if we do, do we use it?

Michael,

You might want to read the comments at Normblog.

In the US we have usury laws, laws regarding the slaughtering and preparation of meat and food, public decency laws, alcohol control laws etc.

Does that make the Koran a "main source" of legislation in the US?

In other news, enlistment quotas for the year have been met, link, registration required. Just a reminder that the Tempest D'Jour needs to be taken with a dash of milk or a bit of lemon.

I'm seeing a general consensus of "wait and see" in the comments here. I feel the same way.

strcpy: "The problem is that if you give people freedom, they may choose to fling themselfs off the cliff. Some beacuse they don't care, others because they think it is a good idea, and some because it will give them power (especially if they aren't included in the cliff flinging thing)."

In addition, some of them don't know it's a cliff; some of them believe it's verdant meadow; some of them know it's a cliff, but they've been up and down that cliff so many times that they're feeling comfortable with it; some of them are currently wayyy too busy avoiding sinkholes, active volcanoes, and fire-breathing tigers to be worried about this silly ol' cliff.

To me, this is just one more step. We took, what, eleven years to get it right? Let's give Iraq a while. Silly, silly people. Why are we so impatient?

"Silly, silly people. Why are we so impatient?"

I think everyone here is missing the point. This is not merely an exercise in comparative political philosophy class. There are stakes here that are, or should be, even more important than whether the Iraqis turn out to be Jeffersonians or not.

The overriding concern should be whether Iraq becomes a state that is, in any way, friendly or conducive to islamist terrorists, or even just their ideology. It never really was before. Now it might be. And it doesnt have to end up looking exactly like Iran in order to be problematical.

It looks like Iraq will have a weak central government, and an army infested with, if not outright incorporating large elements of tribal and religous militias. With a weak center, buttressed by an armed force that knows little of the values we think important, there is little potential for repressing what might be boiling up in the provinces. With much ambiguity in the constitution, there is lots of room for lots of nastiness to boil up in the provinces.

Bush has consistently sold this war as part of a global war on terrorism. Whatever you think of that, the question of the day is - what have we wrought in Iraq in terms of advancing the struggle against the jihad. Will the new Iraqi system of governance have any ability to control, suppress, or even just dissuade the forces of jihad that are out there, trolling for support?

In short, does the emerging Iraqi government offer any promise whatsoever to advance our interests vs. the terrorists, or are we witnessing the creation of a permanent cauldron of trouble.

Well, we already know that the vast majority of Iraqis want democracy, want a unified Iraq, and want secularism mixed with traditional Islamic values.

The problem with Iran is not sharia. The problem is that Iran does not respect the democratic process. As long as the democratic process is respected, Iraq should be OK. Any laws that are too crazy will be voted out.

I’ve thought for a while now the best outcome would be the dissolution of the parliament and new elections. This would have several benefits including increased Sunni participation, greater legitimacy and reduced pressure for Islamic law.

Unfortunately, it’s always been the least likely outcome. Politicians never want to give up power.

Of course, if they really wanted to compromise, they could just leave the contentious issues out of the constitution and kick them down to the next legislature. They don’t want to do that precisely because the people presently in power realize their influence will wane after the next elections.

I wouldn’t particularly mind seeing the the new constitution defeated in the referendum, either.

It’s a low standard, though. To be defeated, 2/3 of the people in 3 provinces must vote against it. It doesn’t take much to get 34% of people to vote for something.

I think it will probably pass. People tend to forget we rammed a Constitution right down the Japanese’s throats, literally at the barrel of a gun. At least Iraqis have some input into theirs.

If the referendum is defeated, I’m sure we’ll hear lots of hysterical rhetoric about how democracy in Iraq has failed, but of the course the reality will be that the democratic process has succeeded in doing what it was supposed to: reflecting the will of the people and requiring more compromises. As long as participation in that process continues, democracy is succeeding. When the major parties start using guns instead of words, that’s when democracy has failed.

I'm not convinced by Michael's pessimism, at least not based on the draft Constitution.

Constitutional references to Islam are to be expected in countries with a Muslim majority. Everything I've read about Sistani and company leads me to believe that there are no plans in Iraq for an Islamic republic along the lines of Iran.

"U.S. diplomats foolishly conceded ground to the Islamists in order to get a constitution draft out 'on time.' "

Michael are you saying that our diplomats acted on their own, without any instructions from Washington? Sorry, the buck on this one stops in Crawford.

How about you explain how we could have expected anything better from the incompetents and fools who got us into this and ran it into the ground.

My site is kaput, and because my ISP has disappeared into the night, I'm having trouble getting my domain switched to a new host. Be that as it may, a cached page exists at Google where I talk about measuring success or failure in Iraq. Fifteen months later, I'm still pretty happy with the analysis. As a bone to the naysayers, I'll admit I'm not as optimistic today as I was last May; on the other hand, I still believe in the policy and the theory behind it, and I still think we're in early days when it comes to any transformation in the Middle East.

The bottom line, I think, is there are a wide range of possible outcomes in Iraq, and at this point labeling our efforts either an absolute failure or an unmitigated success doesn't make sense unless you've decided to become an active propogandist. And until we see how the Constitution is implemented (assuming it gets that far), we frankly won't have a clue as to whether the Islam language is banal or catastrophic.

So as someone said, chill pill please. We have a way to go before this ride is over.

Well, we already know that the vast majority of Iraqis want democracy, want a unified Iraq, and want secularism mixed with traditional Islamic values

Well actually I dont think we know any of those things. I would love to be able to interpret the fact of the January elections as some endorsement of democracy as a principle. Perhaps it really is a reflection of that, but I think it far too early to tell. There is, unfortunatly, a far more parsimonious explanation for the turnout, and I think we need to stick with that interpretation until we have proof that more is going on.

What I refer to is simply the will to power - which is distinct from a committment to democracy as a principle. The Shia and the Kurds have been shut out of their fair share of power for - well, forever. We offered them an avenue for seizing power. They took it - obviously. It happened to be a democratic avenue. I would contend that they would have taken the avenue no matter what type it was. It was a route to power. Once agian, I am not denying the possibility that there is a commitment to democracy out there, I am just stating that that commitment has not be proven yet, certainly not by the simple fact that they Shia and the Kurds took advantage of a readily available route to power.

We have even less evidence that there is a commitment to a unified Iraq. The Kurds, I suspect, would be quite happy to have nothing to do with the rest of Iraq. Give them Kirkuk and the oil in that region, and I think you can say goodbye to a unified Iraq. Now the Shia, or at least some of them (leaders of the largest party) are agitating for a similar level of autonomy for the south as what exists in the north. The clear rationale for that is that they do not wish the Sunni and Kurds to interfere with the establishment of a culture and society in the south that reflects Shia values. I dont see much commitment to unity here, except from the Sunnis, who would be left with nothing but sand if the country fragments.

As for secularism - well the Sunnis and Kurds seem to want it. But the two largest parties emerging from the elections seem otherwise inclined. So I dont really see any significant majority in favor of secularism, though I hope you are right.

TallDave, right on. Anything offered is very likely to pass in October. The biggest key is the ability to change/ correct a mistake.

If Federalism is code-word for revenue sharing, Bush's biggest mistake was in NOT setting up an "interim" oil-money trust fund for all Iraqis (or only those who vote, after Jan?)

If keeping Iraq unified is a signficant goal, Bush's biggest mistake is accepting party lists, rather than local districts. Party lists support extremist leaders, especially separatist ones.

"What Iraqis want" -- on most questions is unclear. The district/ party list details are important for the answers received.

But it IS, clearly, an IRAQI constitution. Not a US one the Iraqis have to accept. Heck, they won't "have" to accept this one; but almost certainly will.

What is the makeup of the court system?

I have to agree with Observer that (as of today) it's hard to see what value our adventure in Iraq has had on the war on terror. But then again, there wasn't a single person in March of '03 - here or around the world - that suggested that invading Iraq might not be such a great idea, was there? I'm sure we'll soon be treated to another link from the hypergraphic Hitchens about why I'm full of it.

The below is stolen and edited:

I seriously doubt that any hard questions will be answered or any new thoughts hatched, but I give Totten credit (?) for staying intractably pro-war in Iraq, no matter what happens. It’d be as if massive stockpiles of WMD were found being loaded onto bombers the day we invaded, and then Iraq spontaneously erupted into a libertarian utopia and I were standing here waving my finger in the air, shouting, “It still wasn’t worth it!”

MJT,

While it is true that there really is not much of a bright side to this, I am not sure that is the best vantage point. I think it is better to look at it as a necessary concession that needs to be made for there to be an actual Iraq republic. It is the kind of thing that most people realize may be necessary. Nevertheless, it is not permanent. Let's just hope that it improves with time.

Observer,

We do know those things. There have been numerous polls to that effect.

This blogger unearthed the exact current wording:

http://billroggio.com/archives/2005/08/islam_democracy.php

"1. Islam is a main source for legislation.
* a. No law may contradict Islamic standards.
* b. No law may contradict democratic standards.
* c. No law may contradict the essential rights and freedoms mentioned in this constitution."

This is way more fascinating than generally reported. Basically, this clause of the Constitution challenges Iraqis to enact a Constitution that is Islamic and democratic-- and to spend the next few decades (centuries?) debating whether that's possible, and if so, figuring out ways to implement new laws that steer between those principles. We as Americans are still having that debate with Christianity, and frankly, we're the better for it.

"We as Americans are still having that debate with Christianity, and frankly, we're the better for it. "

Where did you get that idea? The Founding Fathers were a mixed bag religiously, some of them quite heterodox, and one thing they did was establish a wall of separation between religion and state. No one denies that. People do argue how high the wall, but there is a separation between religion and state.

Michael,

It seems as though your will to believe in this venture has overwhelmed your ability to see what's in front of your nose.

Thanks, Michael,

for updating your entry and citing the draft Constitution at length.

Further delays on the Constitution are welcome if they result in compromise in the direction of Sunni concerns. On the other hand, I image the Sunni negotiators, if they value their lives, will be rejectionist to the end.

Can Sunni Arab leaders rally their supposed constituencies enough to torpedo the Constitution at the ballot box? If they did, that might not be a bad thing. Sunnis empowered through the democratic process are a good thing, whereas empowerment through the terrorist acts of Baathists leftovers and Sunni Islamist extremists is deplorable.

Pleasant as always to see that the shock troops of the bankrupt 'left' are staggering up to the 'I told you so' line. Having nothing positive to contribute, it is ever so much easier to be always right. It's a quagmire, I tells you. A Quagmire !!! Let's surrender NOW.

Iraq is a work in progress and if we could just remember for more than a nanosecond that MOST of the world operates on a MUCH longer time frame than our insular little technocratic paradise, we might have a better sense of what is actually happening.

Rome wasn't built in a day, and sometimes as MJT's update indicates, it helps to understand the context of events.

As said better by WJA, " This is way more fascinating than generally reported. Basically, this clause of the Constitution challenges Iraqis to enact a Constitution that is Islamic and democratic-- and to spend the next few decades (centuries?) debating whether that's possible, and if so, figuring out ways to implement new laws that steer between those principles."

You wanted something other than force employed against Islamic Nutbars---- this is one part of that. Let's just count to ten and see what happens in 2 days and then what happens to the referendum, and then who exactly gets elected in the next round of voting in December.

Plenty of time to PANIC later.

The court system will be vital. The guardian Council in Iran, self selecting and with it's own private army, holds almost total control over the politics of it's country and was able to frustrate the elected reform government because they have both a legal and legislative veto, and with their army they can enforce their will. I know I am butchering the line but somewhere a American president asked how the U.S. Supreme Court was going to enforce their will because they have no police or army. The Mullahs in Iran don't have that problem so even though they have elections Irans elected body can do little if the mullahs are against it and they have no power to change the membership of the Mullahs. Technically a form of democracy but actually a covert oligharchy. My fear is that Iraq may adopt something similar. If they do it will be a awful. If they don't then the people who vote will always have a chance to alter any negative aspects of the new constitution. I will wait and see before I pass judgement.

So the legislature, in a couple of years, tries to pass a law saying that men may not beat women who try to leave them. And when the courts say that such a law is unconstitutional because "No law may contradict Islamic standards," what are we going to say?

"[4.34] Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

I support the war and Bush's attempts at establishing freedom in Iraq, but if this constitution is the end result, the project will have failed. What a fiasco.

I know I am butchering the line but somewhere a American president asked how the U.S. Supreme Court was going to enforce their will because they have no police or army

Andrew Jackson, I believe. "The court has made its decision, now let them enforce it".

Good point. Who will control the guns in the new Iraq? The Kurdish militias, the Shia brigades, and of course the Sunnis - they are not going anywhere. They may be folded into the army, or not, but they will have a lot of control in any case. Perhaps this parsing of the Constitution is entirely besides the point. There is not going to be a vote as to what the militia's policies are.

All this siily dancing around. The constitution is a disaster. The Soviet constitution had a lot of fine sounding words as well. I'll bet the Iranian one has some great phrases in it. But when an evil cult like Islam is the source of law, basically, every is just screwed. So, I guess the Shi'ites owe Bush a debt of gratitude. All those nearly 2000 US lives, $Billions to install a hate group into office. Also (at least according to the version on the Carnegie Endowment's web site), it's deeply anti-Semitic.

My take on this is a little different. I'm more interested in how their laws will affect their economics.

Upholding contracts and the prosecution of corruption in business will allow greater economic development to occur. The inclusion of women who wish to be involved in business will be a plus.

An independent judiciary free of mullahs is a must.

A better economy, and jobs, for all, means people busier making money and buying stuff than planning world domination. I'm more interested in the first new invention coming out of Iraq than I am in how much of their law might be based on Sharia.

I think, eventually, this will become clear to most of the Iraqi people as well.

As long as every individual has a vote and it cannot be taken from them, we have every reason to be optimistic.

The sky is falling! I blame Bush!

Yawn.

As long as women's suffrage is in the Constitution, which it will be as the coalition is uncompromising on the establishment of democracy, the rug is yanked out from under the burkas-and-beatings version of Islam.

Iraq is going to be Iraq, and they'll probably pass a few laws we would find shocking, particularly in the area of crime and punishment, but Saudi Arabians are likely to be shocked even moreso by Iraq's confident, competent Muslim women participating in modern life as equal partners with men.

Like you said in the update, overall it seems fine.

If you have all these conflicting ideals you can not pass laws against, you can't pass many laws... I love it (libertarian that I am). :)

Laika's Last Woof,

I don't blame Bush at all -- I blame YOU, and those like you who are willing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by accepting "almost good enough." Bush has staked a lot (perhaps too much) on freedom for the Iraqis and the area in general. He cannot do it alone, but alone he will be when the "almost good enoughs" desert him and his great libertarian project.

Michael,

Was there any reason for not highlighting Article (14):

"Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination because of gender, ethnicity, nationality, origin, color, religion, sect, belief, opinion or social or economic status."?

Article 14 by itself negates the most objectionable aspects of shariah. It's also in direct contradiction of Article 1 a. "No law may contradict Islamic standards" if "standards" is supposed to have a strict Islamic theological meaning.

I'm glad you did your update because a careful reading of this constitution reveals it as a fairly secular document with a democratic bent.

Rick: Was there any reason for not highlighting Article (14)

No, just an oversight.

There was good reason not to be too pessimistic until you know everything.

I find more and more reasons to distruct what the press covers. I'm also surprised when I find myself trusting them and not even realising it.

I would rather that not be in there, but all in all pretty decent. That's a heck of a leap for people in that region, you can't expect them to go to a fully secular society that ignores Islam in a few months (and I would assume you now that pretty well from your visits, never been over there but there was a large population of middle easterners (includes israelies) that I went to high school with - my experience with them would say so). One day they may vote to change that.

Informative leftist reading, for those interested:
Juan Cole AGAINST immediate withdrawal: http://www.juancole.com/2005/08/ten-things-congress-could-demand-from.html

And "Iraq: Bush's Islamic Republic" by Peter Galbraith, from August 11 NY Review of Books.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18150

"I don't blame Bush at all -- I blame YOU, and those like you who are willing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by accepting 'almost good enough.'"

And yet there is the war in the Phillipines to consider here. I like to think Mark Twain got it right when he supported liberation from Spain and opposed the later heavy-handed occupation, both in the name of "anti-imperialism".

From the anti-imperialist point-of-view deposing Saddam was a no-brainer. The execution machines are back to chipping wood instead of people, the mass graves are being exhumed and the bodies identified for grieving families, and schools, bridges, and the rule of law are being rebuilt.

But now we're at a crossroads. We have the opportunity to bring to Iraq either democracy as Iraqis would want it or heavy-handed social engineering to please our own aesthetics.

Demanding women's suffrage is part and parcel of democracy. No suffrage means no democracy, so there's no room for compromise there.

Demanding strict separation of church and state is heavy-handed social engineering. Who are we to demand of a super-majority that they keep religion strictly out of politics, even though we demand it of ourselves? It's the mirror image of the mistake we made in the Phillipines forcibly converting people to Christianity. There's nothing democratic about that.

Most other issues lie within shades of gray, a continuum we can at least be aware of today as most Americans were not during the occupation of the Phillipines.

Minority religions need protection from persecution -- is it important enough to put in the Constitution at gunpoint? Is the "No Jews allowed!" clause odious enough we should force them to take it out at gunpoint?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I do know that "victory in Iraq" will mean getting a Constitution by Iraqis for Iraqis which will at times cause us Americans to cringe.

"Defeat in Iraq" assuming the pacifists don't hand the country to Al Qaeda could look a lot like our version of a perfect Constitution unwillingly imposed upon and widely resented by most Iraqis. Such an act would be more morally defensible than, say, our support for the Shah of Iran, but that wouldn't change the likely long-term outcome.

If the Iraqis vote for a constitution that would make me not want to live there, that's their business. Being British would strip me of my Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms, so I wouldn't be too thrilled to live there, either, but I don't think them backwards or undemocratic for it.

"Bush has staked a lot ... on freedom for the Iraqis ..."

I'd say he bet the company on it.

"Informative ... Juan Cole"

Isn't Juan Cole that "Middle East expert" who blamed 9/11 on a conflict in Jenin which took place months later, in April 2002?

Bottom line: These constitutions are not like the American one that has lasted 200 years. Most countries change theirs very often, see France.

So, we shouldn't flip our American wig if it's not perfect the first time. I will guess that if the law is interpreted too strictly as Islamic there will be voters who have the right to vote in reformers unlike in Iran.

I'm not sure who is "YOU" above. Several points to set out:
1) We are already defated in Iraq. We defeated ourselves as soon as we allowed the insurgency to build (by far far too low troop levels). It is idiotic to invade a country with the intent of occupying it and not securing ammo dumps and boarders. We did neither; I guess because Bush&Co bought into Bush's moronic fantasy (or was that Rumsfeld's) that they would be throwing roses at us, so no need.
2) The Iraqi government cannot defend itself. In fact, it is purely a creature of the U.S. If we left, it would be gone in a day or two. The country would become something like Somolia.
3) We forced them to write a constitution. Our soldiers fought and died, supposedly for this. So now we have an explictly bigoted documents (no Jews) and enshrining Islam as the source of law, a la Iran. Every clause in the constitution is basically at the mercy of Islam, easily the most reactionary force in the world (since its repulsive inception in 622).
4) We went there on the basis of lies--does that amount to treason? Our continued presence there weakens us in terms of a drain on resources. How difficult was it for us to climb out of the huge Vietnam hole and now here we are again, Vietnam 2.
5) Staying there won't acheive anything but a drain on our resources. Iraq dosen't actually exist; the three main groups hate each other. Whenever we leave it will fall apart. I'm guess that vacuous, vile moron, Bush, will keep us there until he slides out of office, leaving the next pres to pick up the mess.
6) Since our troops and money paid for this constitution, we should at least have a say in it. What's wrong with forcing our supreior values on others when it's warantted? Didn't we force a constitution on Japan, a totally alien culture? And how has that worked? And on Germany? Just previously to that, the very soul of evil. Why did we cave before the evil of Islam?

Gotta call "BS" on your entire rant, but rather than write a 100-page rebuttal of everything you got wrong, which was pretty much everything, I'll just cite the one example you gave of Japan.

We let them keep their Emperor.

No Nuremburg, no war crimes tribunals, no confrontation with the horrors of Nanking or Bataan, no third nuclear bomb to drive home the unconditional nature of "unconditional surrender".

We let them keep the man in whose name the Shintoists went to war, whom they believed to be a God, and on whose final authority the war was prosecuted.

Force a Constitution we did, as we will in Iraq, but we didn't enforce our will with the absolute ruthlessness you seem to think we did in Japan, nor should we in Iraq.

Your ignorant and purile response is worthless. Yes, we decided to let them keep the Emperor; so fucking what? We still forced our constitution, written by us under military rule on them and we basically remodeled Germany under military rule into our mould pretty much. So your moronic point is....?

One that you've missed, obviously.