Negotiations and Objections Regarding Iraq's New Draft Constitution

As Iraq -- under pressure from the Bush Administration -- tries to hammer out a new Constitution, there is much wrangling and disagreement.

First, the Sunnis are very worried that they are going to get the short end of the stick, both politically and economically, so they are largely opposed to the new Constitution in its present form. (They are probably right about this; they probably know they have it coming after having brutally repressed their Shi'ite and Kurdish neighbors for a number of decades.)

Second, there are the secular Iraqis (Kurds, Christians, and liberal Muslims,etc), who object to the important role the current draft Constitution gives to Shari'a Law. They rightly object that the status of women (e.g., required to wear burqas) under the new Constitution will be lower than what they had enjoyed under Saddam Hussein's regime. One of the more moderate Muslim groups in America, Free Muslims Coalition, also takes the position that the new Consitution should be secular in nature -- and should not give any role to Shari'a Law in the new legal system.

Finally, there are the dominant Shi'ites, who are quite happy with the current form that the draft Constitution has taken -- and they are in apparently no mood to negotiate with the other parties.

It is helpful to remember -- as Michael Savage pointed out on his talk show the other day -- that, historically, there is no "Iraq", as such. Iraq, as we know it, was carved out of the former Ottoman Empire following World War I by England and France.

As has often been pointed out, Iraq naturally subdivides into three ethno-religious regions -- the Sunni west, the Kurdish north, and the Shi'ite east and south. Of those three regions, the Kurdish region is the one that is most in synch with American intentions and plans in Iraq. I can think of worse things than seeing Iraq spit into three countries, personally.