decisionmaking under time pressure

[Earl Maltz]

To follow up, I'd be interested in the impressions of Kim Schepple 
like-minded members of the list  regarding the accuracy of the following 
observations

1.  The operation of the process so far clear demonstrates that many of the 
important domestic political stakeholders in Iraq are strongly committed to 
the establishment of a political regime in which Shari'a plays a dominant role.

2. Given this reality, only heavy-handed American pressure can prevent the 
drafting of a Constitution which does not recognize the importance of Shari'a.

3. Such a constitution would likely not survive the ratification 
process.  Even if such a constitution was somehow adopted, the government 
established under the constitution would likely face strong opposition from 
many of the religious authorities in Iraq, leading to continued instability 
or outright civil war.

4.  Even assuming that a purely secular government could somehow create and 
maintain a semblance of stability and order in Iraq, the United States 
authorities would have done the impossible--they would have made us even 
more unpopular in the Muslim world by providing tangible evidence that the 
government of the United States is in fact the enemy of Islam.

The situation in Iraq is horrible enough.  Lets not make it worse by trying 
to superimpose our values on an alien culture.

At 08:03 AM 8/2/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>The insistence by America's elites (both left and right) on the 
>establishment of a regime based on Western values smacks of the philosophy 
>of the "white man's burden" that provided the justification for 
>colonialism in an earlier era, with secular government and democracy in 
>general and women's rights in particular replacing Christianity as the 
>ideologies that we seek to impose upon political elites in other countries 
>"for their own good."
>
>The invasion of Iraq was a fool's errand to begin with--with or without 
>weapons of mass destruction (for the record, I am not a Johnny come lately 
>to that position--I refused to vote for Bush largely because of the 
>invasion.  Oh, well, there goes my appointment to the Supreme Court.  Our 
>priority in the constitution-writing process should be to provide the 
>foundation for getting our troops OUT--no more and no less.  If that means 
>accepting a document that some Americans find offensive, that is 
>unfortunate, but, oh well.
>
>
>
>At 01:02 AM 8/2/2005 -0500, Kim Schepple wrote:
>
>
>
>>Plus, it seems to that the present draft has many dangerous tendencies. 
>>For example:
>>
>>
>>-- the constitution seems to put Shari'a above the constitution
>>-- women's rights are restricted
>>-- the constitutional court is given the power of judicial review, but 
>>then four out of the nine judges on the constitutional court are required 
>>to have their primary education in Shari'a instead of secular law.
>>
>>
>><http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/08/potemkin-constitution-for-iraq.html>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>>
>>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly 
>>or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.