David Brooks On -- The Iraqi Constitution

David Brooks writes today about the content of the Iraqi Constitution. The article is copied below for you to see first-hand. This underscores how important the work of our military has been.

It's a vindication of our President's policies, his decisions, and his tenacity. If it weren't for President Bush and our brave and honorable military, this day of possibilty and hope would never have come to pass. It should be a day of celebration and great emotion for Muslims around the globe, those who love freedom and democracy, and most importantly the Iraqis who took their own future into their hands, braved terrorists' threats to vote for those who furthered their progress toward democracy. We will be seeing the detractors again, I'm sure. But, right now, let's savor this victory!

I heard on Dennis Prager's radio show today a line by line analysis of the document, the preamble and its definitions...not all of which you will see included here, of course. But here are some important points. Dennis claims this a remarkable achievement in light of the reality of today's Iraq. He referred to the Wall Street Journal's editiorial page today which said that the document guarantees nothing, but makes everything possible.

Some points:
*All things Baathist are banned in Iraq.
*There are more references to women than the Muslim religion in the Preamble.
*It guarantees religious rights to all people.
*Calls itself a Multi-religious country with 90% being Muslim.
*No law can be passed that contradicts the rights set forth in the Constitution. (No religious laws that come into
conflict with the basic rights set forth in the document can be passed. Huge principle, guys.)
*The document reaches out to all Iraqis and surprisingly combines the Muslim religion and the Iraqi people's interest in fairness and democracy.
*The preamble refers to peace and brotherhood for Iraqis.
*And that terrorism and declaring people as infidels did not divert them from going forward together. (Again, huge statement because this denounces terrorism).
*It refers to Iraqis, "We the people of Iraq...Looking with confidence to the future...to respect the rule of law...to pay
attention to women and their rights...(astonishing, says Prager)...to spread the culture of diversity..." "We undertake to establish our union freely and by choice...."
*It includes a sentence that begins, "We the descendents of Mesopotamia...." Again, huge because Mesopotamia pre-dates Islamic religiion.

The definitions of the terms in the Constitution were also heartening. It recognizes the basic religion of the Iraq as Islam, but it describes itself as a sovereign nation in a sentence that does not include any reference to religion. Very good sign too. I hope Dennis puts some of his analysis on his web site, which you will find in my Essential Links to the right.

****

Here's David Brooks' column in its entirety. Please enjoy it!

President Bush doesn't lack for critics when it comes to his Iraq policies, but the smartest and most devastating of these is Peter W. Galbraith, a former United States ambassador to Croatia.

Yesterday, after reading gloomy press accounts about the proposed Iraqi constitution, I thought it might be interesting to hear what Galbraith himself had to say. I finally tracked him down in Baghdad (at God knows what hour there) and found that far from lambasting Bush, Galbraith was more complimentary about what the administration has just achieved than anybody else I spoke to all day.

"The Bush administration finally did something right in brokering this constitution," Galbraith exclaimed, then added: "This is the only possible deal that can bring stability. ... I do believe it might save the country."

Galbraith's argument is that the constitution reflects the reality of the nation it is meant to serve. There is, he says, no meaningful Iraqi identity. In the north, you've got a pro-Western Kurdish population. In the south, you've got a Shiite majority that wants a "pale version of an Iranian state." And in the center you've got a Sunni population that is nervous about being trapped in a system in which it would be overrun.

In the last election each group expressed its authentic identity, the Kurds by voting for autonomy-minded leaders, the Shiites for clerical parties and the Sunnis by not voting.

This constitution gives each group what it wants. It will create a very loose federation in which only things like fiscal and foreign policy are controlled in the center (even tax policy is decentralized). Oil revenues are supposed to be distributed on a per capita basis, and no group will feel inordinately oppressed by the others.

The Kurds and Shiites understand what a good deal this is. The Sunni leaders selected to attend the convention are howling because they are former Baathists who dream of a return to centralized power. But ordinary Sunnis, Galbraith says, will come to realize this deal protects them, too.

Galbraith says he is frustrated with all the American critics who argue that the constitution divides the country. The country is already divided, he says, and drawing up a constitution that would artificially bind three divergent societies together would create only friction, violence and civil war. "It's not a problem if a country breaks up, only if it breaks up violently," Galbraith says. "Iraq wasn't created by God. It was created by Winston Churchill."

One of my other calls yesterday went to another smart Iraq analyst, Reuel Marc Gerecht, formerly of the C.I.A. and now at the American Enterprise Institute. Gerecht's conclusions are often miles apart from Galbraith's, but they have one trait in common. Both of them begin their analysis by taking a hard look at the reality of Iraqi society. Neither tries to imagine what sort of constitution might be pretty to our eyes or might be good in some abstract sense. They try to envision which system comports with reality.

Gerecht is also upbeat about this constitution. It's crazy, he says, to think that you could have an Iraqi constitution in which clerical authorities are not assigned a significant role. Voters supported clerical parties because they are, right now, the natural leaders of society and serve important social functions.

But this doesn't mean we have to start screaming about a 13th-century theocratic state. Understanding the clerics, Gerecht has argued, means understanding two things. First, the Shiite clerical establishment has made a substantial intellectual leap. It now firmly believes in one person one vote, and rejects the Iranian model. On the other hand, these folks don't think like us.

What's important, Gerecht has emphasized, is the democratic process: setting up a system in which the different groups, secular and clerical, will have to bargain with one another, campaign and deal with the real-world consequences of their ideas. This is what's going to moderate them and lead to progress. This constitution does that. Shutting them out would lead to war.

The constitution also exposes the canard that America is some imperial power trying to impose its values on the world. There are many parts of this constitution any American would love. There are other parts that are strange to us.

But when you get Galbraith and Gerecht in the same mood, you know something important has happened. The U.S. has orchestrated a document that is organically Iraqi.

It's their country, after all.

E-mail: dabrooks@nytimes.com

***
Sources: The Dennis Prager Show. Contact Dennis at www.dennisprager.com
The Wall Street Journal, September 25, 2005
David Brooks' column in September 25, 2005, NY Times
The text of the Preamble and the Constitution. This is too hot off the press to have a verified copy, but here's where you can see it if you want. I'll update this link when I find a better source. http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1470212/posts