That didn't take long

What did I say just yesterday about not bringing democracy to Iraq?

Washington, April 22 (New York Times) - The Bush administration's plans for a new caretaker government in Iraq would place severe limits on its sovereignty, including only partial command over its armed forces and no authority to enact new laws, administration officials said Thursday. ...

Asked whether the new Iraqi government would have a chance to approve military operations led by American commanders, who would be in charge of both foreign and Iraqi forces, a senior official said Americans would have the final say. ...

In another sphere, Mr. [Marc] Grossman, [under secretary of state for political affairs,] said there would be curbs on the powers of the National Conference of Iraqis that Mr. [Lakhdar] Brahimi, [the special United Nations envoy,] envisions as a consultative body. The conference, he said, is not expected to pass new laws or revise the laws adopted under the American occupation.

Well, after all, when we said "transfer sovereignty," you didn't think we actually meant for them to be in control, did you?

Footnote: On the other hand, it must be noted that "democracy" can mean different things to different people. The same article notes that a prime task of whatever emerges after June 30 will be to secure the support of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who is unhappy with some of the laws enacted by the Iraqi Governing Council. His supporters want Islamic law to govern such matters as family law, divorce and women's rights.

This actually came up back in January when the IGC proposed to give the final say over such areas to religious authorities. Citing a Newsday article, the Christian Science Monitor noted that it would mean those authorities

would be able to dictate the number of wives a man may have, who gains custody of children in divorces, and whether girls and women may inherit property, and how easily a man can get a divorce.

(The link to the original Newsday article seems to be no longer valid. In case the CSM one gets pulled, I referred to the report here.)

At the time, it caused a storm of protest by educated Iraqi women and the proposal went nowhere. But sexism is a powerful force and if the price for getting Sistani on board is jettisoning the rights of women, I frankly doubt there will be much hesitation.

And no, this is not an argument for staying. The counterweight to the sexism will not be tens of thousands of American soldiers but tens of thousands of Iraqi women, who hopefully will refuse to allow their rights to, if you will, go gentle into that good night.