"Deal" reached on Iraqi constitution

In this instance, a "deal" means that the Shiites and Kurds reached a deal, and the Sunnis had better go along with it. Amazingly, the above article touts a deal, and includes a paragraph like this:

Sunni Arab negotiators had complained of being sidelined in the final week of talks and that Shiites and Kurds were cutting deals excluding them.

That's not a deal, that's strong-arming. And what it ultimately means (besides civil war) is the end of women's rights in Iraq. After $200 billion dollars and 1,860 American lives, we invaded a secular state so it could become a theocracy:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. diplomats have conceded ground to Islamists on the role of religion in Iraq, negotiators said on Saturday as they raced to meet a 48-hour deadline to draft a constitution under intense U.S. pressure.

Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish negotiators all said there was accord on a bigger role for Islamic law than Iraq had before.

But a secular Kurdish politician said Kurds opposed making Islam "the," not "a," main source of law -- changing current wording -- and subjecting all legislation to a religious test.

"We understand the Americans have sided with the Shi'ites," he said. "It's shocking. It doesn't fit American values. They have spent so much blood and money here, only to back the creation of an Islamist state ... I can't believe that's what the Americans really want or what the American people want."

Read this to understand the consequence of Sharia law for women. Short version: women have no political rights, religious rights, inheritance rights, divorce rights (all the man has to do is say "I divorce you" three times, and it's done), or rights of personal expression. Hello, burqa! In pre-9/11 Afghanistan, women couldn't be doctors, and couldn't be treated by a male doctor. Think about the centuries of racism in this country, and realize Americans have never come close to being this cleverly cruel, and you'll see how despairing this is.

At least Washington is finally being consistent: theocracy at home, theocracy abroad. And yet I fail to see how this jibes with fighting a war on terror, particularly if you define terror as "radical Islam." Conservative pundits, who aren't as likely to unquestioningly swallow Administration pabulum (unless they're peddling it), understand how very wrong this is:

For what it’s worth, this is where I get off the bus. The principal mission of the so-called “war on terror” – which is actually a war on militant Islam – is to destroy the capacity of the international network of jihadists to project power in a way that threatens American national security. That is the mission that the American people continue to support.

As those who follow these pages may know, I have been despairing for a long time over the fact that the principal mission has been subordinated by what I’ve called the “democracy diversion” – the administration’s theory that the (highly dubious) prospect of democratizing Iraq and the Islamic world will quell the Islamists. (Aside: go ask Israelis if they think the fledgling “democracy” in Gaza and the West Bank – which is very likely to bring Hamas to power – promotes their national security.)

Now, if several reports this weekend are accurate, we see the shocking ultimate destination of the democracy diversion. In the desperation to complete an Iraqi constitution – which can be spun as a major step of progress on the march toward democratic nirvana – the United States of America is pressuring competing factions to accept the supremacy of Islam and the fundamental principle no law may contradict Islamic principles.

Heh. Indeedy.

There are still holdouts in the "learned" class, like this joker Reuel Marc Gerecht who obviously thinks democracy means "eliminating the voices of half the people":

MR. GERECHT:  Actually, I'm not terribly worried about this.  I mean, one hopes that the Iraqis protect women's social rights as much as possible.  It certainly seems clear that in protecting the political rights, there's no discussion of women not having the right to vote.  I think it's important to remember that in the year 1900, for example, in the United States, it was a democracy then.  In 1900, women did not have the right to vote.  If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled.  I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy.  We hope they're there.  I think they will be there. But I think we need to put this into perspective.

I don't think we'd all be thrilled. I mean, 51% of the American electorate might be a little pissed.

In our zeal to desperately present good news out of Iraq (look everyone, a constitution! How bad can it be if we have a constitution!), we're creating exactly the Islamic caliphate bin Laden seeks. With the news out of Afghanistan getting worse every day, we're one coup away from an Shiite Islamic superstate stretching from the edge of Turkey to the edge of China. Exciting, no?

We obviously cannot tell Iraq how to run their own country, at least not overtly. But the fact that nobody at the Pentagon or in the Administration saw this coming is ludicrous. Iraq has no natural border or ethnic identity. The minority has been oppressing the majority for decades. Payback, revenge, and splitting off into armed camps is a logical consequence. And that's where we're at.