I've read the document in question. It's unlike ours in some ways -- more modern social-science banalities about the environment, and gender-based representation -- but like ours in that it sets general political principles and leaves their exact legal definition to lawmakers. It provides for civilian political control of the military and an independant judiciary. It is much more federal than our constitution, at least since we've begun ignoring the 10th Amendment. Their federal legislature is unicameral and it's representatives are elected at large rather than from regions.
One interesting feature is it's proscription against the government moving people about to change the ethnic balance in the country's regions. This is a reaction to the Baathist practice of strategically depopulating traditionally Kurdish areas and colonizing them with Sunni Arabs. There was a time when the left would have had no trouble calling this genocide.

It will be interesting to see how representatives elected at large will work out. I would have recommended against it if they had asked me...

"proscription against the government moving people about to change the ethnic balance" . . .

Well whaddya know. A constitutional provision banning the bussing of schoolchildren. I know of one democracy that could have used a provision like that in its constitution about forty years ago.

I find it interesting that the author used the following phrase:

"For most every Arab Iraqi the withdrawal of all American and other foreign troops is the sine qua non for ending the insurgency."

This suggests that the Shi'ites (who, let us remember, are Arab but not Sunni) are apparently all for the ongoing insurgency, despite its being led by Ba'athists and including various Sunni religious extremists (not least of which are al-Qaeda types).

So, by implication, the Shi'ites actually would prefer us to leave them to the tender mercies of al-Zarqawi and company?

Somehow, I doubt that.

Well it's pretty obvious that a study of Costitutional history and law have not been of much use in mid-east studies. That said Levine's ignorance is baffling. His article is rife with error.

First as Terry mentions above, constitutions are framing documents, meant to provide a basis for law, not legislate the minutiae.

Next his claim that: "For most every Arab Iraqi the withdrawal of all American and other foreign troops is the sine qua non for ending the insurgency." is patently false. Obviously a miniscule percentage of Iraqi Arabs are in the insurgency.

The planners of the insurgency are aiming at the Shiites not the Americans. If their goal was to rid Iraq of Americans, they would have done best by laying low for two years. Had there not been an ongoing insurgency, our troop levels would be greatly reduced by now. We would likely have only 50 or 60 thousand troops in Iraq now were there no insurgency. Is levine saying the Insurgents are stupid?

Finally, he shows his socialist stripes with this nugget: "a commitment to rebuilding the social infrastructure that was devastated by the invasion and subsequent wholesale privatization of the country's economy under US auspices."

Newsflash: Socialism and central economic planning has failed, particularly in the Mid East. Democracy and a liberal market economy are the only real hope for Iraq to advance into the ranks of prosperous nations.

"If their goal was to rid Iraq of Americans, they would have done best by laying low for two years."

Part of the genius if invading Iraq is that they HAD to respond to our move. They had to fight, because Iraq is in the Arab heartland.

They are dancing to our tune, and the result has been disasterous for them, though you would never guess it from reading the papers..