Diana West wrote a thoughtful op-ed piece on Friday, “Bush basics” (h/t Ed Driscoll). She says, in part:

It’s time to get back to basics. And by basics, I mean getting back to First Term W., back to when the president’s strategy to defend and protect the United States was to take military action against terrorists and the nations that sponsor them. By unfortunate contrast, the security strategy of Second Term W. is best described as bringing universal suffrage to these same terrorists and the nations that sponsor them. Getting back to Bush basics requires a re-reckoning of what and why we fight — and, just as important, for what and why we don’t fight.

Do we fight to spread democracy? Or do we fight to stop jihad? Far better to fight to stop jihad. Second Term W. believes democratic principles will neutralize jihad — a.k.a. “extremism” in the strangled parlance of political correctness. It may not be polite to notice, but the nasty reality is that jihad is neutralizing democratic principles. The fact the administration must reckon with is that the concept of human rights — the ideals of liberty and justice for all — isn’t a natural by-product of majority rule.

It’s fairly unsettling to think that, after all the blood spilled, money spent, and political shriekage we’ve suffered through, U.S. negotiators might be giving in to militant Islamists by enshrining sharia law in the new Iraqi constitution. It’s especially sad that it’s 99.9% due to domestic political pressure to get the constitution “done” by a deadline that they’re feeling any pressure at all.

Perhaps it’s not quite as simple as throwing women’s rights down the toilet. This Telegraph piece points out:

Though still not going as far as fundamentalist Islamic groups had demanded – they wanted Islam to be the “sole” source for legislation – the wording marks a fundamental concession by the US as it ends the possibility of a separation of religion and state. It paves the way for far more conservative social legislation, for example diminishing the divorce rights of women, as it could allow Islamic clerics to serve on the high court, which will be responsible for interpreting the constitution.

Still, were I an Iraqi minority of ANY kind – especially a woman – I’d be considering whether it was time to leave while the leaving as at least theoretically possible (never mind ‘good’).

I’m still on the bus, but I have moved a couple of rows closer to the front. There’s much more on this here, here, here, and at The Corner.

Back to Diana West, who asks:

Can Iraq ever be stabilized without defanging Iran? Shouldn’t there be, for starters, a big bull’s-eye on these Iranian training camps?

That would be “no”, and “yes”, respectively. To those who prattle on about “endless targets”, keep this in mind: Two down: Afghanistan (Taliban), Iraq (Saddam’s massive cash-and-training network); two to go: Iran (money, ideology, facilities, safety, training) and Syria (ibid). The third, Saudi Arabia, I suspect would wisen up by the time Iran and Syria were brought back into civilization (kicking and screaming if they choose), and stop exporting Wahhabism, but if they didn’t, then fine, 3 to go.

The number of active, influential, capable states exporting terrorism through and from the Middle East is not endless; it’s not even that long. And without a global power (China, Russia) to sponsor and protect their activities, what do we lack?

Perhaps we lack the will; perhaps we lack the belief in the goal, or that it’s achievable in the first place. It’s certainly within our grasp militarily to defeat and replace governments which appear hell-bent on undermining and destroying western democracy (ours included). But if we can’t even keep fundamentalism Islam out of the Iraqi constitution, then it raises the question, doesn’t it, of whether we can do the rest of what’s needed to clear out the cesspool?