Newsweek’s Howard Fineman brought up a point on The Today Show this morning that I hadn’t thought about before: if Iraq becomes a country governed by Islamic laws, Bush’s base (i.e., politically-conservative Christians in “red” states), which has tacitly offered support for the war all along, will be thoroughly displeased.
“[Enshrining Islam into the Iraqi constitution would be] dangerous for the president politically … because his core support in the Republican party are religious conservatives, Christian activists, and I’m told that some leading Christian leaders here in the United States have told the administration … that if the constitution ends up being one that enshrines Islamic law, and lessens the possibility of religious freedom in Iraq, that American religious conservatives are going to be very upset with this president.”
Of course they are. Bush helped rope evangelicals into backing the war by telling them that Iraq’s post-Saddam government would be religiously neutral. And that’s clearly not happening.
Shiites and Kurds were sending a draft constitution to parliament on Monday that would fundamentally change Iraq, transforming the country into a loose federation, with a weak central administration governed by Islamic law, negotiators said.
What’s more, this process is unfolding with the administration’s blessing.
Iraqi leaders trying to complete a new constitution moved Saturday toward deals on such contentious issues as Shiite autonomy, sharing oil revenues and Kurdish self-rule. But as they progressed on those fronts, a tentative agreement that would have given Islam an expanded role in the state and in family disputes appeared to unravel.
“Islam is back on the table,” said a person close to the negotiations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the talks.
Under a deal brokered Friday by the American ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, Islam was to be named “a primary source of legislation” in the new Iraqi constitution, with the proviso that no legislation be permitted that conflicted with the “universal principles” of the religion. The latter phrase raised concerns that Iraqi judges would have wide latitude to strike down laws now on the books, as well as future legislation.
At the same time, according to a Kurdish leader involved in the talks, Mr. Khalilzad had backed language that would have given clerics sole authority in settling marriage and family disputes. That gave rise to concerns that women’s rights, as they are enunciated in Iraq’s existing laws, could be curtailed.
Finally, according to the person close to the negotiations, Mr. Khalilzad had been backing an arrangement that could have allowed clerics to have a hand in interpreting the constitution.
That arrangement, coupled with the expansive language for Islam, prompted accusations from the Kurd that the Americans were helping in the formation of an Islamic state.
Consider this from James Dobson’s perspective. He’s backed the war and encouraged others to do the same. The entire religious right movement is on board — only to find out that they’ve offered their support to an effort that leaves another Islamic theocracy in the Middle East? After the White House insisted this wouldn’t happen?
One wonders if, a year from now, Bush will have any friends left.