Taranto puts down the Iraqi constitutional kerfuffle.

Gail Collins Is Unsettled

Yesterday the New York Times published an editorial bemoaning, as the headline put it, "Iraq's Unsettling Constitution":

The draft constitution given to Iraq's national assembly last night does little to advance the prospects for a unified and peaceful Iraq. Nor does it reflect well on the Bush administration, which let its politically motivated obsession with an arbitrary deadline trump its responsibility to promote inclusiveness, women's rights and the rule of law.

The Times complains of "divisive provisions, like the enshrinement of Islamic law and the threats to women's family and property rights." Blogger "Alenda Lux" offers some perspective. Here's a quote from the constitution:

The religion of the state . . . is the sacred religion of Islam. Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law. . . . No law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.

Unsettling? Not according to the New York Times. For this quote is from the Afghan constitution, not the Iraqi one--and when Afghanistan approved its constitution, the Times was exultant, seeing it as a triumph of, as a Jan. 6, 2004, editorial's headline put it, "Islamic Democracy":

Afghanistan's new Constitution offers hope that the beleaguered nation can finally evolve into a modern, democratic state. . . . And it balances the goal of an Islamic state with the promise to abide by the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. America's ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, was right to call it "one of the most enlightened constitutions in the Islamic world."

The Times observes that the Afghan constitution "specifically grants equal rights to women, even promising two Parliament seats in each province to women." The Iraqi constitution (excerpts here and here) has similar provisions:

Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination because of gender, ethnicity, nationality, origin, color, religion, sect, belief, opinion or social or economic status. . . . No less than 25% of Council of Deputies seats go to women.

But these provisions go totally unmentioned in the Times' hand-wringing editorial.

What's going on here? Well, it should be obvious, but in case it isn't, the Times makes it clear with the conclusion of its unsettled Iraq editorial:

Americans continue dying in Iraq, but their mission creeps steadily downward. The nonexistent weapons of mass destruction dropped out of the picture long ago. Now the United States seems ready to walk away from its fine words about helping the Iraqis create a beacon of freedom, harmony and democracy for the Middle East. All that remains to be seen is whether the White House has become so desperate for an excuse to declare victory that it will settle for an Iranian-style Shiite theocracy.

Gail Collins & Co. are heavily invested in the idea that America shouldn't have liberated Iraq in the first place. Failure in Iraq--unlike in Afghanistan--would vindicate them, and that is why they are so eager to find signs of it. What really unsettles America's defeatists is the prospect of success.

Ouch!