Peter Galbraith - who to believe

[carincross]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/opinion/25brooks.html
In this morning's (08/25/05) David Brooks writes that Peter 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."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-islam25aug25,0,7331155.story?coll=la-home-headlines
But, in this morning's Los Angeles Times Edmund Sanders writes, "What are the 'undisputed rules' of Islam? What constitutes 'contradicting?' Since alcohol is shunned by the Koran, should Iraq become a dry nation? Are women required to cover their heads? Does a prison sentence for a thief contradict the Koran, which calls for amputation of the hand? 'The problem is that there are no agreements on these questions,' said Peter W. Galbraith, a former U.S. ambassador to Croatia who advised Kurdish politicians on the constitution. 'It allows any cleric to make his own interpretation of the law and opens the door to a whole range of abuses.' Galbraith said the draft falls well short of the kind of democratic government the Bush administration hoped to install in Iraq. 'The U.S. now has to recognize that they overthrew Saddam Hussein to replace him with a pro-Iranian state,' Galbraith said."

So is Mr. Galbraith saying that this is a very positive move or a disaster? Or is he saying that the constitution reflects a new Iraq that will be a Islamic theocratic state that will align itself with Iran?

I would also note that Mr. Brooks does not mention the probability that women will lose rights under this new constitution.

[mhr]

1. Typical Republican - Panders To Suit The Audience

eom

[gumby]

2. Who to believe? That's easy.

Never, ever, at any time, believe anything that David Brooks says. He is useful, however, as a baloney detector... as in, whatever he says is an indicator of the latest right-wing baloney.

[Igel]

3. Why believe either?

I'm not being forced to declare allegiance to either view.

I've only read some sections of the draft constitution: Some things were missing that I'd like to have seen, but I couldn't very well expect Iraqis to rise above some 1300-year-old cultural imperatives just to meet my cultural and political values. Some things are worded carefully to play a game of kick-the-can: hence the 'indisputable' rules of Islam. One presumes that if any of the more common fiqhs allows something, it'll be allowed, but that presumes at least a Sa'udi-level of official awareness of other fiqhs, not Sanders' level of awareness. And I'm glad to see that private militias will be banned.

And, while the consitution allows clerics to do all kinds of things, much depends on what the legislature does, not the clerics. If they appoint only clerics to the courts, it's a problem. If they appoint no clerics to the courts, it's not a large problem (at least legally, social unrest being a rather different sort of thing).

Galbraith may have been speaking rather complimentarily of the constitution on the whole, but pointing out problems: Brock's quotes lend weight to that assertion. Sanders Galbraith quotes could easily be fit into Brock's narrative; Brock's quotes cannot fit into Sanders narrative.