August 25, 2005
Sham Iraq constitution will not 'honor sacrifice'
As more Americans wonder whether Cindy Sheehan is correct that the best way out of Iraq is to leave, President Bush reiterates, as he did in his most recent radio address, that the country "must finish the task that our troops have given their lives for and honor their sacrifice by completing their mission."
The president's problem, strategically and politically, is that "their mission" has changed again and again. In fact, their original mission -- to keep Iraq from using its stockpiled weapons of mass destruction -- was "completed" by default. The president's first fallback, which he continues to hide behind, was that the Iraq invasion was a necessary response to 9/11. Wrong again. In fact, his invasion has turned Iraq into a recruiting and training ground for terrorists.
The last-resort mission President Bush has declared is "advancing the cause of liberty in a troubled region." But to have any chance of accomplishing that restated mission, Iraq's constitution -- twice postponed -- must embody the ideals the Bush administration has been advocating. The draft hastily submitted Monday and facing a new deadline today does not do so, regardless of the administration's claims to the contrary.
Women need bedrock equal rights in matters of marriage, divorce, inheritance and child custody. This constitution doesn't grant that; in many cases, clerics would make the decisions. Promises to protect women in a later "bill of rights" can't be trusted. If the Bush administration uses passage of an incomplete constitution as an excuse to withdraw before next year's congressional elections, the promised women's rights probably never will be provided and other flaws probably never will be fixed. Hardly a way to "honor their sacrifice."
The constitution also does not guard against creation of a fundamentalist Islamic state. Rather than build the foundation for a stable Iraq, the proposed document sets up an independent Shiite state likely to be under control of Islamists allied with Iran. Another autonomous state in the north would be dominated by Kurds whose goal is to break away and form an independent Kurdistan. Counting on their autonomy and eventual independence, the Kurds would not be a brake on Islamic rule in the south.
An overriding Bush administration goal has been to give the Sunni minority a stake in the future government of Iraq as an alternative to continued participation in the insurgency. That hasn't happened. There are enough Kurdish and Shiite votes for the interim parliament to pass any constitution it wants. But Sunnis may have the votes to block its adoption in October's national election. If that happens, or if Sunnis overwhelmingly oppose the constitution and it passes regardless, seeds for a total breakup into three states have been planted.
To a nation seeking answers, President Bush offers platitudes that have dried out from being reheated so often. If he disagrees that American troops should leave, when will he offer evidence that their continued sacrifice is worth it?
Posted by Opinion staff at August 25, 2005 7:49 AMOnce again the Editorial Staff shows their stuff. Would the Post propose that we have troops, in Iraq, until their constitution looks like ours? Anyone, who has bothered to read the Federalist Papers, knows there was a great deal of disagreement, as our constitution was being drafted. I believe Iraq should work on this, as long as it takes, to try and get it right.
Why is it that the Liberal press always has to bring up WMD's, thereby accusing the President of lying and giving false reasons for going to war? The facts, which the press should be presenting are, that the preponderance of evidence, available at the time, indicated that Iraq had weapons. Where they are now, we really don't know for sure, do we?
The fact is that, after all this time, everyone loses if we do what the Post infers we should do and just say, "Sorry, we were wrong about WMD's, let's put Saddam back in power and just leave." If the Post doesn't want us to do that, then I would suggest they get out of the I hate Bush mode, and get into the what's best for the country mode. I'm sure the Post staff is diligently working on a plan to elect more Democrats, in 2006, and that somehow they believe that, if they continue to make the President look bad, no one can possibly vote for a Republican. Well, the Post and the Democratic Party has to come up with plausible solutions, both at home and in Iraq, in order for anyone to look at electing them.
There's a difference between doing something and making a mistake, and doing nothing but point to the mistake and not offer any viable alternative.
Grow up, editorial staff, people aren't looking for you to be the same anti-war group from the 60's. This war is different and you need to realize it. This one started with the deaths of 3000 people, not a lying Democrat claiming the North Vietnamese had attacked 2 of our destroyers.
Posted by: Jim Temple at August 25, 2005 7:01 PMIt is, I guess, not surprising that the Post editorial echoes the New York Times editorial of the previous day. But, once again, the Post takes aim at the President and manages only to hit itself.
It has been pointed out that much of the proposed Iraqi Constitution is modeled (some say plagiarized) from the Afghani Constitution, one wonders why both the New York Times and the Post complain now when they didn’t earlier.
Additionally, there have been analyses from the Wall Street Journal, David Brooks, and Michael Barone, that actually, you know, looked at the language of the proposed Constitution and see many reasons to be encouraged.
Finally, it is not surprising that the Post wants a stronger federal framework since they always seem to believe we need a stronger federal presence here. But, there is little evidence that a Shiite push for an Iranian style theocracy could make it through a parliament of comprised of two thirds Kurds and Sunni’s. The Post needs to also remember that the current Iraq is a elephant defined by the British on their way out. A loose federalism makes a Iranian style theocracy, except in the Shiite portions, unlikely. And, that would still be subject to the federal government.
The sky is not falling and the Times is no longer on top of things.
Rick
Services »
