Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Iraq's Constitutional Crisis
The continued squabbling over Iraq's constitution again raises the question of whether "democracy," or even "liberal democracy," accurately describes America's goal there. If the will of the Iraqi people is to split this arbitrarily defined nation-state into three countries, by what principle does the U.S. oppose that outcome? Haven't we moved beyond a policy that elevates stability above democracy?
One possible answer is that, while an independent Iraqi Kurdistan might maintain something like a liberal democracy, the outlook for Sunniland and (especially) the Shiite Republic of Iraq is decidedly less favorable. Only by forcing these clashing groups to live together in one country can the U.S. guarantee a reasonably free and tolerant polity, which in turn will help spread the ideals of liberal democracy throughout the Middle East, thereby counteracting Islamic extremism and making terrorist attacks on Americans less likely. Hence our security depends on, among other things, the willingness of Shiite clerics to compromise their vision of Iraqi divorce law. Is that the idea?
|8.16.05 @ 10:10AM|#
Either way, it looks like the women of Iraq are screwed. Nothing says "freedom" like Sharia law and gender-based house arrest.
MP|8.16.05 @ 10:17AM|#
rant
From this cynic's perspective, this whole Constitution thing in
Iraq is a joke. The Constitution is likely to be treated with just
as much integrity as in Venezuela. What matters is that the society
embrace the concept of Natural Rights enforced by the Rule of Law.
No piece of paper is going to change that. Once we pull out (if
ever, thanks GWB), the infighting will begin.
/rant
|8.16.05 @ 10:21AM|#
Maybe the phrase "civil war" will be easier to swallow than "border skirmishes".
|8.16.05 @ 10:27AM|#
You gotta hand it to Dubya. He's certainly made the world safer for Islamic fundamentalists, except for that chunk of worthless land called Afghanistan.
|8.16.05 @ 10:28AM|#
"Only by forcing these clashing groups to live together in one
country can the U.S. guarantee a reasonably free and tolerant
polity"
What a joke. The US doesn't have the troops to force these groups
to live together. Does Mr. Sullum propose a draft or some other
means to greatly increase the US troop presence?
|8.16.05 @ 10:34AM|#
Let's get to the really important issues of writing a
Constitution:
1) Don't worry too much about what you put in there. If you don't
like it you can always come up with a creative interpretation later
to do what you want anyway.
2) Along those lines, let's talk about oil: If you can't agree on a
way for assigning property rights or dividing revenues, just
stipulate that oil and oil revenues can only be put toward "public
use." What does "public use" mean? Whatever the politicians want it
to mean. (It might help to agree in advance on which politicians
get to make that call, otherwise they might decide that buying
weapons to kill rival claimants is "public use.")
3) I would encourage the Iraqis to enshrine in their Constitution
the right to keep and bear arms, but I think it's safe to assume
that's one right that the central government will be totally
incapable of violating.
4) Despite what I said in the first item, some pain in the ass
might come along and say "Where in the Constitution does it say
that the government can do this?" There are two ways around that.
The first, and most obvious, is to make sure that loyalists of your
political faction have the right to keep and bear arms. That will
teach the guy to be a pain in the ass!
But, if it should turn out that loyalists of his faction also
exercise their right to keep and bear arms, it helps to have a
clause saying "The Islamic Congress shall have the power to
regulate inter-province commerce." That takes care of
everything!
5) We Americans have found that actually voting for our leader is a
bad idea. Instead, we use a rather complicated system that gives
disproportionate power to heavily religious rural areas. Try it and
see how that works before you do anything silly like "One Shia
man/One Shia vote."
6) Finally, I urge you in the strongest possible terms to include a
balanced budget amendment.
|8.16.05 @ 10:35AM|#
Again, I put forward my half-serious proposal for assuring
freedom and peace not only in Iraq but throughout the Middle
East:
Provide one assault rifle with a few dozen rounds of ammunition to
each and every veil-clad woman who is brave enough to come forward
and ask for one. Insist that she burn her veil before handing over
the weapon.
|8.16.05 @ 10:39AM|#
Since the borders of Iraq were decided, rather arbitrarily, by the British, there is extra incentive for us not to repeat the same mistake. We can actually improve upon the mistakes of the past and possibly avoid some of the wrath of the varied peoples currently living in "Iraq". I'm all for it, until I see an even better argument for forcing them to live together than the decent (but not great) one Jacob references.
|8.16.05 @ 10:40AM|#
I would suggest recruiting several chapters of Dykes on Bikes to distribute the firearms.
|8.16.05 @ 10:56AM|#
On a more serious note, I wish more people at these idiotic
"contitutional conventions" would go back and read their Locke. One
point in particular stands out in my mind: Locke's implicit
preference for simple forms in government. He recognized that how a
government is structured formally does not determine how it
works--the content of the vessel is far more important than its
shape. No matter how many checks and balances and electoral
formulas and safeguards you put into a constitution, garbage in
means garbage out.
And if you make the document so complex that no one can read it
(like the EU debacle), then you make it that much easier for
tyranny. Simple forms! Simple procedures! Like maybe, erm, I dunno,
that scrappy old parchment dating to the late 18th
Century....
The greatest ideas in history have been scribbled in margins or on
cocktail napkins.
|8.16.05 @ 10:59AM|#
"Hence our security depends on, among other things, the
willingness of Shiite clerics to compromise their vision of Iraqi
divorce law. Is that the idea?"
I think that's the idea. ...any compromises on divorce law aren't
the only thing "our security depends on", and Shiite clerics aren't
the only ones who need to compromise.
Unless they're offered something better than what they already
have, nobody trades. From the perspective of Kurdistan, what's
better about compromise on oil revenue? From the Sunni perspective,
what's better about being a tiny part of a coalition with your
traditional enemies? ...With little or no oil revenue?
...and yes, why should Shiite clerics compromise with anyone? In
what way will they be better off for having compromised? ...To get
the Americans to leave? Is there any sustainable benefit beyond
that? If Sistani's or Sadr's slates are defeated in some future
election, will the Shiite clerics nod their heads and join the
loyal opposition?
Yes, it's willingness to compromise. ...and it's not clear to me
that the parties are willing to compromise into a coalition--long
term. ...and that's because it isn't clear--to me anyway--that a
coalition offers the most important parties a better deal than they
already have.
|8.16.05 @ 11:08AM|#
The preliminary drafts of the Iraqi constitution that have been
leaked honestly read like someone sat down with Bastiat's essay
"The State" and said, "OK, how can we violate every recommendation
on constitution-drafting in this thing?"
Read "The State" here:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss5.html#Chapter 5
Read a draft version of the Iraqi constitution here:
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/BillofRights.pdf
MP|8.16.05 @ 11:09AM|#
Hence our security depends on, among other things, the
willingness of Shiite clerics to compromise their vision of Iraqi
divorce law.
To continue my rant...divorce law in a Constitution? What a
disaster. JMoore nails it at 10:56 AM.
And thanks thoreau for the reminder about the f*cked up state of
this country's Constitutional doctrine. sigh...
There was an episode of West Wing with Christoper Lloyd playing
Lawrence Lessig making the point about how the details of the
Constitution didn't matter. His priority was to work on instilling
the ideas surrounding the Rule of Law. Some people may see a lot of
bias in West Wing, but that show is definitely a thinking person's
show.
Dave W.|8.16.05 @ 11:13AM|#
US security doesn't depend on a stable Iraq. US security depends
on a way to get more energy when the oil runs out.
If Iraq wants to split, let them split. Its their country, not the
US's. If they want to border skirmish, let 'em border skirmish.
They can bleed themselves dry so far as I care, so long as they
aren't using my tax monies to do the violence.
|8.16.05 @ 11:17AM|#
They can bleed themselves dry so far as I care, so long as
they aren't using my tax monies to do the violence.
I agree, but after that WMD justification fell apart the excuse was
"We're going to give them freedom." MY tax money has been used to
ensure that the women of Iraq will now have LESS freedom than they
did even under Saddam. If I were an Iraqi woman, now forced to wear
the veil and stay home all the time after a lifetime of secular
freedoms, I would raise my children to despise the country that did
this to me.
|8.16.05 @ 11:18AM|#
"But, if it should turn out that loyalists of his faction also
exercise their right to keep and bear arms, it helps to have a
clause saying 'The Islamic Congress shall have the power to
regulate inter-province commerce.' That takes care of
everything!"
They've got that taken care of, thoreau, see the link I posted
earlier at Art. 18, sec. 2:
The state shall bear the responsibility for growth, developing
production and services, building a solid infrastructure for the
economy of the country, and providing services.
|8.16.05 @ 11:23AM|#
JMoore--
I'd need mroe than one gun to fight off an entire country full of
people who'd be happy to throw acid in my face, or outright kill
me, if I tried to get a job or talk to my male friends or leave the
house for any other damned reason.
But hey, let's all harp on how Iraq is sooooo much fucking better
now that we've invaded! Granted, the female half of the population
is screwed, but that's okay--human rights violations only matter if
the violated parties are male, right? If it's a woman being
oppressed that's just "culture."
|8.16.05 @ 11:25AM|#
It's interesting that, on the domestic front, the accounting
profession has finally recognized that a bloated corpus of
byzantine rules (GAAP) breaks down. Now there is a move to
establish principles-based accounting (like the Brits) as opposed
to the incomprehensible rules which no one can follow
consistently.
Maybe we should send some accountants to advise the Iraqis. They
know the horrors of too much detail.
|8.16.05 @ 11:26AM|#
Jennifer, if you keep on acting so hysterical about the plight of Iraqi women you'll never be admitted to Stevo Darkly's camp for attractive conservative females.
|8.16.05 @ 11:30AM|#
Yep, Jennifer. It's just a different cultural paradigm.
My half-serious point about arming the women of Iraq is really
based on the belief that, so long as half the population is de
facto second class, they're ALL going to be screwed.
Iraq could use a few radical "feminazis." At least in the
interim.
MP|8.16.05 @ 11:31AM|#
It's interesting that, on the domestic front, the accounting
profession has finally recognized that a bloated corpus of
byzantine rules (GAAP) breaks down.
Really? This
story ($) from The Economist seems to imply that Accrual
Accounting is here for the long haul.
|8.16.05 @ 11:37AM|#
If you're left-wing then I'm a Randroid.
I oppose the wars on: drugs, prostitution, homosexuality and any
other victimless crimes; I think protecting people from EACH OTHER
(as opposed to themselves) is a legitimate function of government;
I agree with the necessity for worker-protection laws and some sort
of social safety net (though I disagree with the exact way these
are implemented now), and I don't buy "federalism" as an excuse for
letting states decide to put minority rights up to the vote.
Yup, leftie.
|8.16.05 @ 11:47AM|#
Nothing wrong with being a leftie, or a rightie, or a
centerie.
Of course, while all you side-ists are down on the floor hurling
insults at each other, I will be up in the gallery hurling rotten
cabbage at all of you.
|8.16.05 @ 11:57AM|#
The biggest difference between this constitutional convention
and ours?
The people arguing over our constitution had recently spent nearly
a decade as comrades in arms, fighting for their own, and each
other's, liberty. No matter how deep their disagreements or
divergent their interests, they had that bond between them, and
experience at muddling through together.
By denying the Iraqi people a role in their own liberation, beyond
the scripted statue-toppling and requests to please kiss Ahmed
Chalabi's ass, we have denied them the foundation they need for the
transition to democracy.
|8.16.05 @ 11:58AM|#
Whoops, almost forgot my most damningly leftist trait of all: while I don't like paying taxes, I don't believe that taxes are the single greatest threat our personal freedoms face. "Well, this candidate is going to weaken the Bill of Rights and intensify the War on Drugs, but he's also offering to decrease my tax burden by ten percent so fuck yeah! I'm voting for him."
|8.16.05 @ 12:00PM|#
The people arguing over our constitution had recently spent
nearly a decade as comrades in arms, fighting for their own, and
each other's, liberty. No matter how deep their disagreements or
divergent their interests, they had that bond between them, and
experience at muddling through together.
True, but maybe the Iraqis' shared hatred at the thought of women
controlling their own destinies will be enough to bring them
together. Kind of like the way, a few months ago, the Israeli Jews,
Muslims and Christians were able to set aside their animosity long
enough to agree that they really, really hate gays.
MP|8.16.05 @ 12:03PM|#
we have denied them the foundation they need for the
transition to democracy
Years of living under Saddam without a successful revolt appears to
indicate that they denied themselves. This is not to justify US
actions, but it is also not fair to blame the US for their apparent
lack of civil foundation. It's their own damn fault, which is one
of the many reasons why we should not be there.
|8.16.05 @ 12:06PM|#
Years of living under Saddam without a successful revolt
appears to indicate that they denied themselves
The Kurdish revolt might have been successful if we'd kept our word
when we said we'd back them up. And how do you successfully revolt
against a dictator who had the world's most powerful country (US)
supplying him with state-of-the-art weapons?
|8.16.05 @ 12:11PM|#
Jennifer, if every leftie was more like you I'd be a proud leftie! Yes, I know, not good enough for the purists here, but your approach is a hell of a big step in the right direction.
MP|8.16.05 @ 12:11PM|#
The Kurdish revolt might have been successful if we'd kept
our word when we said we'd back them up. And how do you
successfully revolt against a dictator who had the world's most
powerful country (US) supplying him with state-of-the-art
weapons?
The US has a lot to be culpable for, which is why I solidly support
the LP isolationist doctrine. However, in the end, it is still the
responsibility of the people in a particulr region to work out
political processes amongst themselves. Putting blame on other
parties by saying "we would've, if only they'd let us!" simply
victimizes them and abdicates them of their fundamental
responsibility to deal with the situation at their doorstep.
|8.16.05 @ 12:14PM|#
Jennifer,
The United States was a minor supplier of weapons to Iraq. The
French and Russians were bigger suppliers.
But that doesn't change your point that the government had access
to stockpiles of military hardware that the Kurdish and Shiite
rebels were denied.
|8.16.05 @ 12:15PM|#
MP, if I give serious weaponry to the guys who are beating you up each day and then criticize you for not stopping the beatings on your own, that would make me one of the more loathsome varieties of hypocrite.
|8.16.05 @ 12:16PM|#
One other thing, Jennifer:
What do you think of guns? To some people here that's a big litmus
test.
Full disclosure: I signed up for a gun safety class. Did the
classroom part last weekend, but due to schedule conflicts the
first actual live-fire class that I can take is in October. I'm
curious to learn, but I'm hardly a fanatic on it. Even if I wind up
purchasing a firearm, I doubt it will ever be my #1 priority issue.
Yeah, I know, 2nd amendment, right to self-defense, yadda yadda.
Well, everybody has their priorities.
Truthfully, my priorities aren't so much ideological as
intellectual: I get really worked up over anything that's just
plain flies in the face of common sense.
|8.16.05 @ 12:18PM|#
And, before somebody asks, I think that disarming the law-abiding residents of DC flies in the face of common sense.
|8.16.05 @ 12:18PM|#
Joe--
Posted after I saw your comment. We DID give a lot of stuff to
Iraq, mainly because we viewed them as a buffer against Iran. My
last (mind-numbingly boring) job was at a defense industry
consulting firm, where among other tasks I'd have to copyedit the
"Force Structures" of each country--basically a laundry list of all
the weapons, ammo and fighting vehicles a country is known to have,
and where they're from and how old they are and blah blah blah. I
know that for Saddam's Presidential Bodyguard, every single weapon
down to their hand-pistols came from us. And a lot of stuff for the
general military. And a lot of their ground vehicles, too (though I
don't remember whether or not we gave him planes--I don't think so,
but I can't swear to that).
|8.16.05 @ 12:22PM|#
Thoreau--
I used to be 100% pro-gun-control; what made me start to seriously
rethink that was the legal reaction to Columbine; even a
gun-control advocate like me could see that designating schools as
"Gun-free zones" was the same as posting a sign which said "FREE
SHOOTING GALLERY FOR GUN-TOTING PSYCHOS. VICTIMS GUARANTEED NOT TO
FIGHT BACK."
And then I read some anti-gun-control websites and saw that they
made some good points (though in other ways they were quite moonbat
insane). I don't think individuals should be allowed to own things
like nukes, of course, but regular guns and weapons? Oh yes.
Especially considering how the government's been going lately.
|8.16.05 @ 12:30PM|#
Jennifer-
First, it's sad that you had to state that you oppose personal
ownership of nukes. But, in some libertarian circles, that is
(sadly) a debatable point. If somebody asked me where I would draw
the line on what an individual can own, I'd say this: If the cops
include a weapon in their arsenals to combat criminals, we should
be able to legally purchase the same. Is it a purist libertarian
stance? No. Is it a huge improvement on the status quo? Yes. Am I
deliberately imitating Rumsfeld's style of asking and answering his
own questions? Well, you have to post with the style you have, not
the style you'd like to have.
Second, even when I considered myself a lefty and didn't mind gun
control, I used to be semi-serious in suggesting that we cut gun
control in half: Women can carry whatever they want, while men need
background checks and waiting periods and no more than 10 rounds
per magazine, etc. Some of the people in my lab were aghast at what
I thought was a perfectly reasonable response to violence against
women. (Libertarian men would, of course, be aghast, but that was
before I saw the light.)
MP|8.16.05 @ 12:40PM|#
But, in some libertarian circles, that is (sadly) a
debatable point.
thoreau, don't confuse a libertarian's Original Meaning stance with
their personal liberty viewpoints. One can be perfectly consistent
in believing that owning nukes is a Constitutional Right while
believing that WMDs should only be kept by the state.
|8.16.05 @ 12:41PM|#
Thoreau, that "women can carry what they want" sounds good on
paper, but my years working as a stripper meant that, while I did
meet a lot of upstanding women who were just paying for college or
supplementing the income of their day jobs, I also met a lot of the
dregs of society, which resulted in my possibly being the only
feminist misogynist in the world. Even today I get along far better
with most men than with most women (in part because men are less
likely to monopolize conversations by talking about their kids, or
what Oprah said, or why THIS eyeshadow is so much better than THAT
eyeshadow).
Just last night, in fact, when I was home trying to work on a
work-project, I heard two women shouting at each other in the
street: "FUCK YOU, BITCH! YOU WANNA GO DOWN?? I'LL TAKE YOUR
FUCKING ASS ON NOW!" Then three others joined in; apparently the
argument had something to do with their kids. And the kids are
watching as their respective Mommas threatened to "Take you DOWN,
bitch! Fuck you!" et cetera.
Trash is trash; the gender doesn't matter.
|8.16.05 @ 12:51PM|#
Violence against women is a tricky argument for gun
control.
...I saw a study a few years back looking at incidents in which men
shot their wives with a handgun. The research showed that in some
three out of four cases the wife didn't know when to quit.
Mark Bahner|8.16.05 @ 12:58PM|#
D-oh! Failed again.
Here's the link:
http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2005/08/what_should_be_.html
|8.16.05 @ 1:55PM|#
Heh, heh...Jennifer, make it two misogynist feminists. I'll
carry that with you.
Thoreau, I'm a leftist libertarian myself, and I like guns. In
fact, communists taught me to shoot. You know, the coming
revolution and all. That was in the Reagan years, and I've long
since abandoned communism, but guns are cool.
|8.16.05 @ 2:09PM|#
And how do you successfully revolt against a dictator who
had the world's most powerful country (US) supplying him with
state-of-the-art weapons?
Use your more skilled guys with state of the art weapons to back
the insurgency which you armed with state of the art weapons
against said dictator. This is part of the reason I voted against
Bush Sr in 92.
joe:
The United States was a minor supplier of weapons to Iraq. The
French and Russians were bigger suppliers.
Jennifer:
I know that for Saddam's Presidential Bodyguard, every single
weapon down to their hand-pistols came from us.
Jennifer-
I'm with joe on this. As a geek who used to read force structure
tables, especially Iraq's because they kept buying stuff, I find
this incredible. I'd like to take this discussion off-thread with
you.
|8.16.05 @ 2:11PM|#
April--
FUCK YOU, BITCH!! I'LL TAKE YOUR ASS DOWN RIGHT NOW!! YOU CAN BITE
MY--oh, whoops. I meant thanks.
Seriously, though, I'm glad to hear I'm not the only feminist
misogynist out there. Yes, I know men have more testosterone which
leads to greater violent blah blah blah, but if you take away the
hardcore criminal element and just look at average, everyday men
and women, I think women on average might be worse. More pettiness.
More likely to view other members of their gender as "competition."
If this were the pre-feminist era where the only way you could
succeed was through a man, that could maybe be understandable, but
nowadays?
I remember this one super-trashy bimbo I worked with in a dance
club: she was proudly telling the story of how she got home from
work a couple nights before and found her boyfriend in bed with a
strange woman, and she beat HER up! So of course I said, "If you're
going to be mad at somebody, why not HIM? He knew he was cheating
on you; the girl might have thought he was single."
And of course I got the "fuck you bitch" in response.
The mace I carried when I danced was NOT because I was worried
about my customers.
|8.16.05 @ 2:14PM|#
Herman--
Unfortunately I have no links for this; the force structures I had
to do were from a company that charged thousands of dollars per
volume, versus putting them online. But I distinctly remember that
we furnished Saddam's Presidential Guard, because I happened to do
that FS while we were having some fresh trouble over there, and
pointed it out to a colleague and said we'd have a much easier time
if our own superior weaponry wasn't being used against us.
But if you want to drop me an email go ahead. I'm having a slow day
at work anyway.
|8.16.05 @ 2:15PM|#
I never understood why a woman demands gifts from a man in these
times, either, or engagement rings that use up two months' worth of
his salary or so, etc. Dowries and bride prices are out,
ladies.
But, we've hijacked this thread. Back on topic, does anyone know
what provisions there are in the unfolding constitution for women's
equality? I should be more aggressive about doing the homework
myself, but it's hard to find anything about specific.
MP|8.16.05 @ 3:03PM|#
Just check out how sharia law treats women, and you'll
know.
Well, there are no references to sharia law in the draft document
referenced above, so don't go getting your panties in a bunch just
yet.
|8.16.05 @ 3:31PM|#
True, MP. And yet the thing's only half-written and many leaders seem to want a theocracy, so don't go assuming your balls are out of the nutcracker just yet.
|8.16.05 @ 3:41PM|#
"We DID give a lot of stuff to Iraq, mainly because we viewed
them as a buffer against Iran." - Jennifer
A buffer? Yeah, right. We armed Iraqis for the sole purpose of
continuing the slaughter. Someone in the federal government was
quoted by AP as saying gleefuly, "The Saracen are eating
themselves." I think it was Rumsfeld. Anyone else remember that
quote?
|8.16.05 @ 3:46PM|#
Saw-whet--
I was trying to be polite. Just goes to show why it's not good to
wear a false personality.
|8.16.05 @ 7:22PM|#
saw-whet, that sounds like Secretary of Defense Urban II,
actually.
As for gun control, I like the idea of unlimited firearm purchases
for every citizen, but an allowance of 25 bullets per year per
person, or 15 for convicted felons(which will, of course, lose me
the support of any hard line Libertarians) I predict that the end
result will be a dramatic drop in the number of shooting deaths,
and a dramatic rise in the number of pistol-whippings, which I
think even the most strict of gun control activists can agree is by
far the coolest looking form of personal assault.
|8.17.05 @ 1:02AM|#
The government used neocon lies to foist this war on us as being
necessary for our security, which it was not. I think that the
important question now is: What likely result can possibly justify
anymore American deaths?
There isn't one, so it's past time for our government to bring the
troops home. If they stay there, Iraq will be used for a base to
launch attacks against Iran and Syria, the next targets on the
neocon hit list.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245