Sorry I was so blunt in my title, but it seems as though there is another enormous problem with the proposed Iraqi constitution besides the fact that nobody in Iraq can seem to agree on it.
I came across some startling observations in this article about what Iraq's new constitution, if it is ever agreed upon, will look like.
(Emphasis is mine in all quotes.)
The constitution's language is often vague, sometimes deliberately so, and protections granted in one section of the document seem undermined elsewhere, several scholars and political analysts said.
"Deliberately vague" is a bad thing. This could allow for very broad interpretations of the law, which often leads to oppression.
Many tough questions about individual liberties, including the ultimate role of Islamic law in society and women's legal protections, are open to interpretation or left for future legislatures or courts to decide.
"We're very concerned about the provisions related to religious freedom, and specifically the provision that would make Islam the main source or a basic source of law," said David Christensen, director of congressional affairs for the conservative Family Research Council.
Does it seem to anyone that the U.S. is rushing Iraq along in its process of drafting a constitution? Leaving basic rights out of the constitution to be decided later is not a good idea. And this whole thing about Islam being the source of law - I have nothing against Islam, but theocracies have a very poor success rate.
President Bush and Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice congratulated Iraqis when the referendum was presented to Iraq's parliament on Sunday after repeated delays. On Monday, Bush said the constitution is a brave and democratic answer to terrorism and violence in Iraq.
More BS from the Bush administration. In there eyes, anything that happens in Iraq is good news. If Saddam Hussein were to be elected as Iraq's president, Bush and Co. would call him "a man of principles with an unwavering resolve".
Instead of using guns to decide the fate of the future, Iraqis from all aspects of their society came together and wrote a constitution," Bush told an audience in Arizona. "This constitution is one that honors women's rights and freedom of religion."
Notice how Bush says the exact opposite of what is true.
"The whole document is a mix of contradictions" that are unworkable in practice, said David Phillips, a senior fellow at the private Council on Foreign Relations who has worked with Iraqi opposition political groups and Iraqi Kurds.
He said Iraqi drafters were under immense pressure from their own increasingly fractured constituencies and from the Bush administration. The charter sets up divisions among men and women and among the country's religious and ethnic groups, and without Sunni Arab support it won't reduce the rising insurgent violence against U.S. troops and Iraqi security forces and civilians, Phillips said.
"It hard to spin this as a success," Phillips said.
I think that quote speaks for itself.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Monday he believed the Iraqi constitution would pass, even if many Sunnis opposed it. "They're not going to vote it down," he said.
"The Iraqis are going to have an Iraqi solution," Rumsfeld said. "They're going to have to find ways to live together."
The administration has marked the constitution as a critical milestone on Iraq's path toward political and military independence from the United States. If it fails, the process of setting up a permanent government could be set back a year, or the country could slide closer to civil war.
Who does Rumsfeld think he is? King of Iraq? How does he know that they won't vote it down? Is the U.S. forcing Iraq to adopt that constitution?
The document was also expected to be a cornerstone for expansion of democracy in the Middle East. Democratic expansion and protection of human rights have supplanted the unsubstantiated threat of weapons of mass destruction as the administration's central justifications for the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
This one takes the cake. How can the justifications for a war be "supplanted" in the middle of that war?