Paul Marshall and other religious freedom watchdogs aren't happy about Afghanistan's constitution:

Earlier this week, the Afghan government made public its long delayed draft constitution. It is a murky blueprint for a repressive state, what the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom calls "Taliban-lite."

...While the draft outlaws discrimination on the basis of religion and sex, and professes adherence to international human rights standards, these provisions are subject to the stipulation that they cannot be contrary to an undefined "sacred religion of Islam...." The constitution does not say what the principles of Islam are. They will be defined at some later point by Islamic judges. But, whatever they are, they will be the law of the land and "ignorance about the provisions of laws" (56) will be no defense against them.

...In his November 6 speech on promoting democracy in the Middle East, President Bush said that the constitutional draft recognizes Afghanistan's "Muslim identity, while protecting the rights of all citizens." In its present form it does no such thing. The administration needs to work with Afghani moderates to amend the draft when it goes to the Loya Jirga on December 10. After that it may be too late. Article 149 provides that the "provisions of adherence to the fundamentals of the sacred religion of Islam...cannot be amended."

A year ago I would have been biting fingernails, fearing that the White House had caved. Today, I'm not liable to worry. When we expect an otherwise backwards country to stand towards the vanguard of Near East democracy, we shouldn't anticipate an instantaneous quintessence of Western secularism. Watching the war on terror proceed has been for me a powerful lesson in the ubiquity of the 80/20 rule; most of the time, President Bush has been forced to make the best out of less-than-desirable situations with limited time, political capital and resources. His administration has compromised more than once, admittedly with mixed results; but more positive than negative.

Yesterday, the president held a politically vulnerable, major press conference on the idealist vision of asserting universal democracy. Absent it, the right would have been content, understanding the president's intent through his actions - and the left wouldn't hate Bush any less. With that in mind it would seem obvious that the White House understood the Afghan constitution, in conjunction with the current hold-the-line strategy, to be the best possible outcome for the time being. Nor should we forget that our own Constitution initially denied voting rights to women and all rights to African slaves, and allowed a host of domestic intrusions.

America has resolved most glaring legal deficiencies over two centuries. By all means, the Bush administration and Afghan secularists should seek to nullify any creeping totalitarianism in Afghanistan's constitution before it becomes supreme law of the land. But again, it seems obvious to me that if the president and his allies can amend it, they surely will.

TAKING DEMOCRACY SERIOUSLY, BUT PRACTICALLY: Two sharp assessments, one by Christian Brose and the other by the irrepressible Victor Davis Hanson, on where the president is going. Even if he doesn't prevent some of the more troubling aspects of the constitution now, Bush may do as Steven Den Beste suggests, and truly roll up the sleeves in Afghanistan as soon as more pressing strategic concerns elsewhere can be addressed.