Vodkapundit - Buy Now and Save

Buy Now and Save

Posted by Stephen Green · 18 October 2005

It's amazing to me that Iraq – just 30 months after liberation – seems to have approved a new constitution. It's also amazing that this isn't the first time Iraqis have gone to the polls in that short time. It's even more amazing that, despite what a rule-of-law Iraq would mean to existing and would-be despots around the Middle East, that violence was remarkable on Election Day for its rarity.

But most amazing of all is that some people complain about the content of Iraq's charter document. Does it give a special place to Islam? Yes, it does. Is that a choice I'd make? Uh, no. Also, hell no. And maybe even a "shit, no!" if I'm drinking. But you probably already know I don't give a special place around here to any religion.

Hell, even our constitution gave a special place to slavery, as originally written – a little mistake we didn't get around to fixing for nearly a century. And – oh, yeah – we're still not perfect. Neither is Iraq. However, if -- if - the rule of law takes hold in some small measure in Iraq, then they'll have something quite special. That special thing is something we take for granted: The ability to peacefully improve their country, rather than having to take up arms.

Of course, it's easier to write that last line now that all our Civil War brides are long dead. I've said it before and I'll say it again: we ain't perfect. What we are, is lucky and resourceful enough to have a country where we usually settle things peacefully. Iraq is one small step closer to that, too.

So I laughed when I read this line from Ralph Peters today:

If the day comes when the last U.S. troops leave a peaceful, democratic, prosperous Iraq, the headlines will read: "FAILURE IN IRAQ: THREE SUNNIS STILL UNHAPPY."

He's right, you know – but that's an essay for another day. Though I'll let you in on this teaser. When countries lose wars – and sometimes when they win – the people eventually rise up and do nasty things to the collaborators.

I'm not pointing any fingers or encouraging any distasteful activities. I'm just remembering some history while enjoying a martini. And that's always cool.

Also cool? Tonight's Nip/Tuck. Actually, the whole damn season. The show successfully avoided a sophomore slump last year – which had me worried it would totally bite in Season Three. Maybe "the Carver" has overstayed his welcome a bit this season, but only maybe. And it's for damn sure my wife would like to see more of Christian the Rogue and less of Christian the Victim. But it's still some wickedly fun TV.

Does that tie in at all with the Iraqi election? Um… you bet it does. And I'm sure somewhere behind the TimesSelect pay-per-view wall, Maureen Dowd has already made the connection. Maybe even with an original fact or two. Hell, this post has become a sad parody of a Dowd column - we went from Iraq to a primetime TV to Maureen herself, without an original thought the whole way through.

So gimme fifty dollars and we'll call it even.

Comments

It's also worth pointing out that things usually happen for a reason. All those wacky laws that fill up checkout-lane humor booklets all came about as the result of honest lawmaking. I'll bet there's even a good story behind why it's illegal to bring a monster into the city of Urbana-Champaign after dark.

The "3/5 compromise" wasn't a "mistake", it was an ugly but necessary kludge whose primary purpose was to get the document ratified by all the colonies, including the slaveholding ones. The framers had to grit their teeth while putting it in, but they knew that ratification was a more pressing concern than ending slavery, and if they pressed for ending slavery, the United States would never come to be.

Similarly, if codifying Islam gets the Iraqi constitution ratified by all parties, it's not a "mistake", it's a recognition of the reality on the ground, and getting a democratic constitution passed is way more important than trying to solve all the country's social ills at the same time. The earlier the constitution is in place, the longer Iraq will have to beome a society that operates under the rule of law, and the better the chances for ironing out those problems peaceably later.

It didn't work out that great for us-- we had to fight a civil war when our constitutional "mistake" came to a head. But Iraq is doing no worse than us so far, and they might study our history and do yet better.

... Then again, I just finished reading Jon Stewart's America book, and after all it snarky one-liners about how stupid Reagan was for supporting SDI and how Jefferson's sexual indiscretions defined him far more than the Declaration of Independence did, I'm in something of a mood.

Posted by: Brian Tiemann at October 19, 2005 12:50 AM

So gimme fifty dollars and we'll call it even.

It's on the dresser, toots.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 19, 2005 08:55 AM

So with you on the Nip/Tuck thing...

One of the best written and produced shows on the television, in my opinion.

Though I want to know why keep calling Tara, Kat, what's up with that? And how did she go from Defense Attorney to Investigator.

I was so on the Kat is the Carver bandwagon, my mate thinks the new Dr. is the Carver, I think it is no one we've met yet.

Posted by: Jon at October 19, 2005 10:37 AM

Maybe a little OT:
How many people realize that slavery in the US wasn't based on race? If this were so, there would not have been any free blacks before Emancipation. You'll not find any laws that state "Africans are slaves because of their race". Article 1 of the US Constitution does not mention race as a factor in slavery, only distinguishes between "free" persons, "those bound to service for a term of years" and "all other" persons. Even the "Indians not taxed" provision makes clear that Indians' status was not based on their race, but on their exemption from paying taxes. Slavery was based on property rights. Indentured slavery, which involved many whites, was based on contractual promise.

Posted by: Robert Speirs at October 19, 2005 11:04 AM

"Toots". A highly undervalued term of art.

Posted by: PDS at October 19, 2005 11:14 AM

Toots? Undervalued term of art? I don't think so.

Why, just the other day I nudged a buddy and said, under my breath, "Check that blonde out. She's got great toots."

Posted by: Bruce at October 19, 2005 04:33 PM

It was what, something like 12 years between the Declaration of Independence and the writing of the US constitution.

Iraq took 30 months?

Where's the downside here?

Posted by: N. O'Brain at October 19, 2005 05:18 PM

Yeah, three may be unhappy, but 78,000 are alive who would otherwise be dead. Fuzzy Moral Math

Posted by: DPH at October 19, 2005 06:04 PM

People will choose freedom over dictatorship, when given a choice between the two.

Let us all give thanks to those men and women who put the comma in the preceeding sentence.

Posted by: -Ed. at October 19, 2005 10:22 PM

11 years, 2 months, 13 days from Declaration of Independence to Constitution (the signings, that is). Four years from the Treaty of Paris to the Constitution. And that's without trying to establish things while fighting off a somewhat vicious insurgency. So, Steve's right. 30 months. Quite an accomplishment. And if you insist on it being perfect from the start, then you must think there's a few amendments to our own Constitution that weren't really necessary. Like, say, the Bill of Rights? The post-civil war trio?

Posted by: oldretirednco at October 20, 2005 07:17 AM

And if you insist on it being perfect from the start, then you must think there's a few amendments to our own Constitution that weren't really necessary. Like, say, the Bill of Rights? The post-civil war trio?
--------------

How about taking back a bit further and include the Articles of Confederation?

Posted by: Sharpshooter at October 22, 2005 01:56 AM