E-mail:

To add on to what you just said about the Iraqi constitution: I believe that it really can be conceived of as a major victory that we simply have nudged the Islamic world toward focusing on its crucial internal issues. Just getting them to focus on themselves, instead of on us, is the most general the way I understand what Bush is up to. If the short term decision is bonkers, by our lights, that doesn’t change the underlying dynamic of discussion, which is new.
I understand the honor of the argument that Andy M. and others are making, but I think their defensible positon is “let’s not give up too easily.” If it turns out that the Islamic world in Iraq isn’t ready to do what we prefer, so be it. We can’t let that be described without challenge as a huge defeat.
The role of women is a big part of what ails them, it seems clear to us, but it’s a deeply embedded issue in the culture. I would say it’s at least as complex as voting and other civil rights legislation in the South, say, in the early 20th century context. We couldn’t even breezily command a screwed up part of our own population to make a change that deep.
The legitimate left critique on this would be: did W consider this in planning the invasion? I think almost undoubtedly not. But will Iraqi women be better off in a new system anyway? That’s a real complicated question, and I would point to how no one in Iraq had any kind of real future under Hussein, and major war was a nearly inevitable occasional occurence under the guy; at least I think the answer is not as clearly NO! THEY’RE WORSE OFF! as Maureen Dowd or someone would insist.