« No Constitution Would be Better than an Islamic State | Main | The "Swiftboating" of Senator "Grunt" »

22 August 2005

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Some Guy

I find it most interesting that so many still want to handicap what is going to be in that Constitution. So far, all the predictions about the glorious model democracy in Iraq have come out wrong. Bush, in his interview with Tim Russert categorically ruled out and Islamic state because Chalabi told him it would not be. Now flakkers are out there saying it won't be as bad as you think, it will be a flexible system of law.

Even with a constitution, how it will be implemented remains to be seen.

Claims of success are going to ring so hollow, it will be deafening.

ismoot

Patriot

Defamatory language is not allowed on my blog. You are banned.

pl

Curious

additional argument.

I bet this gonna make Bush rethink Islamic law. It speaks right through his Halliburton buddies. This gonna hit him right where it hurt.

---------------

from Cole's blog

http://www.juancole.com/2005/08/whither-foreign-investment-in-iraq.html

Whither Foreign Investment in Iraq under Islamic Law?

Doug Ireland covers how the US media covered the story that the Bush administration acquiesced in enshrining Islamic canon law in the Iraqi constitution.

What is amazing to me is that no one has brought up the issue of commercial law. Islamic law has three parts: 1) ritual acts and personal status (`ibadat or what the human individual owes to God) 2) commerce and other human interactions (mu`amalat or what human beings owe each other); and 3) government regulations beyond the text of revealed law (as-siyasah ash-Shar`iyyah or public law).

If no law may be legislated by parliament that contradicts shariah or Islamic canon law, then may corporations operate in Iraq? Traditional Islamic law does not recognize corporations as persons, and stops with partnerships. Moreover, presumably banks would not be allowed to charge interest on loans. (Islamic banks typically offer depositors something like mutual funds, on which there could be returns but there is also risk of loss). Mr. Bremer's hundred laws are likely to be replaced with fiqh or Islamic law manuals (that discuss things like Islamic contract law. Halliburton had better hire some ayatollahs as advisers.

searp

This endgame really makes me wonder about our leadership. The severe political problems were identified before the war began; no mystery at all. It is apparent, however, that we had no plan to address these - these were "Iraqi problems". Then, to make us feel good about our sacrifice, the administration promises that the government will bring democracy, human rights, etc etc. This is rank incompetence, period. This is not an ideological problem, it is out and out incompetence, at a level that should have gotten the Commander in Chief tossed out on his ear last fall. I am still trying to understand why that didn't happen...

Some Guy

searp,

I agree with the sentiment about the incompetence here. As a civilian and a non-specialist on foreign affairs even I have found the decisions and policies in all of this bewildering. As polls indicate, I am in substantial and growing company. Bush's decisions run afoul of the most basic common sense, at least to this lay person.

However, regarding the comment that this is not an ideological problem, I would differ with you. I feel that the foreign policy of this administration has all the marks of some new strain of colonialism that is, like all colonialism, about the projection of power and imperial authority at base.

The Project for the New American Century was probably better named the Project for the New American Hegemony.

Yet the rank, staggering incompetence of this crowd has been so overwhelming, I would tend to agree that, were I to write a history on this moment, I would likely lede with the incompetence.

For a group of people so seemingly determined, with essentially all the levers of government at their disposal, to be so unrelentingly bad at achieving their goals, it real it is extraoardinary.

As many people have noted in various ways, can you imagine the torches and pitchforks if a Democratic president had executed this "policy"? Without one-party rule in the U.S., there would no doubt be a wholesale political upheaval here at home.

Jerry Thompson

Note -- this is 23 Aug -- has the virtue of having seen the purported draft--

I'm perplexed -- How could anybody have expected any of the Sunni representatives to accept this? For all the vagueness, the vision of "federation" is clear. I can't imagine how any Sunni in the current assembly could feel he has the authority to accept this -- unless he were already committed to suicide, within hours.

I agree it is virtually impossible to figure out who, within the Sunni community, would have such authority. That is a problem.

So, what are we doing here? Is this the "product of a middle school model UN field trip" as one friend suggested? Or, is this the product of a decision to "ram it down the Sunnis' throats?" Who made that decision? Our NCA?, the Iranians?, SCIRI/Da'wa?, Barzani/Talabani? Whoever made it -- looks to me like a political decision without the military force or the legitimacy to employ force to back it up. Back home, they call that letting your mouth overload your 4th point of contact.

Is it just me hallucinating, or is it not a correct observation to note that the Sunni insurgents effectively have no LOC, they are living on top of their LOC? They have all the trained manpower, explosives and financing they need to continue their insurgency indefinitely. There is no Ho Chi Minh Trail, no COSVN -- what comes in from Syria and Iran is not insignificant but it is also unnecessary. So, who is it that's going to ram this down the Sunnis' throats? And, how are we going to define our role in that exercise?

Some Guy

Bush, today, the 23rd of August: "'The Sunnis have to make a choice,' Bush told reporters in Donnelly, about 80 miles north of Boise. 'Do they want to live in a society that is free or do they want to live in violence?'"

So if the Sunni's reject the draft, clearly either they like violence or hate freedom. It could not possibly be for any other reasons, could it? The constitution itself could not be a cause of concern; it must be other 'values' they hold that are not consistent with Bush's soundbite foreign policy.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

August 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          
Blog powered by Typepad