The Islamic Republic Of Iraq

Current Events Terrorism and Islamic Fundamentalism
1

From the Islamic Republic of Iraq’s Interim Constitution:

Article 7.

A)    Islam is the official religion of the State and is to be considered a source of legislation.  No law that contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam, the principles of democracy, or the rights cited in Chapter Two of this Law may be enacted during the transitional period.  This Law respects the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of religious belief and practice.

First Afghanistan votes themselves into an Islamic Republic. Now it is almost certain that Iraq will do the same come January–unless a full civil war breaks out first.

Next stop on the ‘forward strategy of freedom’ tour: ???

2

Yes, you are right MisterSwig, what we need is a president who will really get tough with these 8th century tribal bastards. We need a man who will bring down the wrath of U.N. resolutions, international trade sanctions and sweeping diplomatic maneuvers. We need a man who will swing the mighty club of the France-German-Russian axis of punishment.

Within days of Kerry’s election the entire populations of Afghanistan and Iraq will be overwhelmed with the spirit of Jeffersonian liberty-worship. They will march on Kabul and Baghdad chanting “We hold these truths to be self-evident”… Mass rallies of Koran-burning will break out spontaneously and the nights will see everyone in their mud huts reading Atlas Shrugged by candlelight.

Indeed, these are the things Kerry can achieve. Forget the petty achievement of dismantling two horrific regimes, ignore the silly accomplishment of ending decades of organized rape and child murder, dismiss the trivial smashing of the religious police that formerly prowled the streets punishing any sign of happiness, don’t be deluded into thinking that the removal of Hussein and the Taliban and their insane band of genital-crushing, torture-happy apes is a worthy achievement. John Kerry would have done far more and done it right!

3

A is A:

There is not one proper American principle Bush claims to uphold which he does not render meaningless with his actions. Bush once declared North Korea and Iran part of an axis of evil ­ only to allow both countries to accelerate nuclear weapons programs and threaten to strike America. Bush ordered the Marines to attack Fallujah – only to command them to stand down during battle. Bush denounced state sponsorship of Islamism ­ only to capitulate to Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

The President neither explicitly defined nor properly declared – let alone waged and won – the war. When he should have urged Congress to declare war on states that sponsor terrorism – he trivialized it as a war on a tactic. When he should have named the enemy, Islamism, asserted America’s right to self-defense and waged war on those who sponsor it ­ he praised Islam, reduced the military to a mission of mercy and left Afghanistan and Iraq to the ayatollahs, whom Bush regards as free to elect an Islamist dictatorship.

Scott Holleran has written this regarding the Bush Administration’s “successes”

Fact is fact. Afghanistan and Iraq are Islamic “republics,” linked philosophically to Iran and thus prone to sponsorship of terrorists.

Bush hasn’t a clue as to how to defend America’s self-interests.

4

The equating of religion with law is a part of the majority culture, and you won’t be able to cure that with a document. If there is criticism that Bush hasn’t changed the fundamental nature of these people and made them accept laying it aside altogether, then that criticism is valid to whatever extent someone can come up with a plan that would have accomplished what the Bush administration has not.

That said, the Iraqi interim constitution mostly pays lip service to Islam. Islam is named as the state religion which is empty language because it is cited as a guide for law, but not as a peer to the law. And this means nothing when Article 3 is explicit about putting all religions and sects on equal footing, making it similar to US law. Assuming atheism is counted in Iraq as well, this is a definite win.

More importantly, however: Article 13 enumerates essential individual rights. Here, we have the tip of the wedge for countless good laws flowing. I can’t understand why one wouldn’t see *this* as the most exciting thing about the interim constitution. This is huge!

5

The equating of religion with law is a part of the majority culture, and you won’t be able to cure that with a document. If there is criticism that Bush hasn’t changed the fundamental nature of these people and made them accept laying it aside altogether, then that criticism is valid to whatever extent someone can come up with a plan that would have accomplished what the Bush administration has not.

That said, the Iraqi interim constitution mostly pays lip service to Islam. Islam is named as the state religion which is empty language because it is cited as a guide for law, but not as a peer to the law. And this means nothing when Article 3 is explicit about putting all religions and sects on equal footing, making it similar to US law. Assuming atheism is counted in Iraq as well, this is a definite win.

More importantly, however: Article 13 enumerates essential individual rights. Here, we have the tip of the wedge for countless good laws flowing. I can’t understand why one wouldn’t see *this* as the most exciting thing about the interim constitution. This is huge!

In other words, their constitution has some contradictions in it. Last time I checked so does ours. This does not doom them to failure, although it does open the door for it.

6

The essence of Holleran’s argument and Dr. Peikoff’s is two-fold. First, that Bush is losing the war, and in the process discrediting the policy of offensive pre-emption. Second, that Kerry will also lose the war, but will in the process discredit the policy of appeasement, after which, presumably, there will be a groundswell of support for executing a proper pre-emptive strategy, and a “real” cowboy politician will appear and take us to victory.

Look, I agree with many of the criticisms of Bush, but I don’t think we are losing the war. I do not see how the Afghan campaign can be called a failure. Granted, Afghanistan is titled an Islamic Republic, but its constitution contains many safeguards for individual rights – just as McGroarty points out regarding Iraq’s. Afghanistan now is semi-free and will likely include a US military presence for years, as will Iraq (unless Kerry is elected).

But rather than argue about whether we are winning or losing the war – I know I will never convince some of you we are winning – just let me repeat a few questions for the Kerry supporters here. I’ve asked them before, but got no response.

First, can appeasement really get any more discredited than it already is? Do we really need any more empirical proof that it doesn’t work? History is loaded with such proof. We’ve already suffered through entire Presidential Administrations of appeasement – Carter and Clinton. Nobody out-appeased Carter, though Kerry might.

The appeasers cannot be convinced – no matter what disasters their policies produce. The appeasers do not want to win. They want to see America lose.

Second, another Administration of appeasement will not be without its costs. Kerry will weaken us militarily. He has already publicly announced his intent to terminate our missile defense system and the bunker-busting bomb program, just for starters.

How can you advocate further weakening America to prove a point that is beyond dispute?

Third, where is this real-deal cowboy politician going to come from? When Nixon’s appeasement of the communists led to the fall of Vietnam, what did we get next? Jimmy Carter. You know, the guy whose lip prints grace the back-side of every dictator on the planet.

7

Second, that Kerry will also lose the war, but will in the process discredit the policy of appeasement, after which, presumably, there will be a groundswell of support for executing a proper pre-emptive strategy, and a “real” cowboy politician will appear and take us to victory.

The big problem here is that wherever any liberal policy fails, the accusation is that it failed for not being liberal enough.

Look at what happened when irrational “liability without fault” laws were passed to push the cost of being a flu vaccine manufacturer up, and then irrational laws were passed that made the government an artificial monopoly consumer with an irrational fixed price cap. Did anyone point to the unreason that made manufacturing flu vaccines in the US an impossible business venture? No. The presidential challenger stood up and declared capitalism at fault – the process failed because it still wasn’t socialist enough.

If that clear cut a failure doesn’t wake people up, I don’t want to wait for us to lose wars so badly that the majority can see it. I can’t begin to envision how bad things would have to get.