re: thanks
The issue of the role of Islam in Iraq's government has already been hassled over at considerable length. The final basic principles described in their new constitution were as follows:
The basic principles of the Iraq constitution:
Iraq is an independent nation, and its system of government is a democratic, federal, representative republic.
Islam is the national religion and a basic foundation for the country's laws; however, freedom of religion is upheld.
The state has a multi-ethnic makeup and dual national languages: Arabic and Kurdish. Turkmen and Assyrian are official in regions where they are spoken.
Terrorism, ethnic cleansing, and takfir are banned, as is the "Saddamist Ba'ath Party".
The country is part of the Islamic world and its Arab citizens are part of the Arab nation.
The country has a single military, under the command of the civil authority.
The constitution is the highest law of the land. No law may be passed that contradicts the constitution, the undisputed laws of Islam, or the principles of democracy.
Translations have minor variations. For example, the word "undisputed" in the last part has also been translated as "established" and "fixed."
This is most definitely giving Islam a seat at the table, without giving it absolute power. Whether they can make it stick, like any constitution, remains to be seen.
...surely if our original goal had been to send Iraq to democracy school, we could have figured out how to do it for a much lower cost in lives and money. Or decided to not do it and try to do more good elsewhere. A correct Plan A would've changed everything.
Leaving Iraq be under Saddam was always an option, and as far as any theoretical "Plan A" goes for Iraq, it was pretty much the only non-military option. It's what we decided to do after the first Gulf War, but as I've pointed out elsewhere, this status quo wasn't all that good either.
If anyone has a way to send an oppressive and murderous dictatorship to "democracy school" without any violence, the world has been waiting for it for a long time.
You have to understand that what we are giving Iraq right now is "breathing room." I agree that more aggressive action earlier on would have done a better job of this, but without U.S. forces at this point, the violence would take over the whole country, not just parts of it. Most of the attacks now are not against U.S. forces at all, but against other Iraqis. By protecting the fledgling government we are giving the Iraqis the only chance they've got, however slim.
Any people who believe the country would turn less violent or somehow settle into some benign regime after we leave are dreaming.