If you question the accomplishments in Iraq so far and desire a sign of a better outcome, do not look at the Iraqi constitution. It is one of the highlights of democratic advance, approved by a referendum in 2005. Unfortunately, its content mirrors the conflicting states of affairs in the nation.

A constitution is an important document. It establishes fundamental principles that guide the actions and judgments of a government. One that contains opposing principles will be an ineffective instrument for establishing and maintaining stable and effective governance.

For starters, the Iraqi constitution says, "Islam is the official religion of the state and it is a fundamental source of legislation." "No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established."

Even though the "House of Islam" is not one happy family, the role of clerics will be a required feature of proper governing and jurisprudence. The Quran and the Sharia traditions (Islamic legal principles) have center stage in political affairs.

If the U.S. is fighting for freedom in Iraq, this document fails the test from the outset. It is important that the constitution was established by democratic means, but when a culture dominated by a religious ideology has the opportunity to express its principles, it should be no surprise that the preferred formulation conforms to its traditional cultural ideals.

The U.S. has, in effect, supported the establishment of a government that violates its own constitutional principles. The major casualty of liberalism is the significant sovereignty conferred on individual persons and the guarantee of freedom to live (think, communicate) according to the preferences of each.

Other casualties include social practices (assembly, media, political parties), educational curricula, theoretical accounts, and spiritual beliefs and values. Liberalism protects religion, but subordinates it to secular legal principles. If liberty and democracy must adapt to Islamic cultural heritage, these values are severely disabled.

However tolerant and compassionate the ideals of the Quran may be, they are not tolerant toward non-Quranic values and lifestyles. The evidence is obvious in countries governed by Islamic principles, no matter how diverse the individual nations may be.

As such, the Iraqi constitution undermines its credibility in the modern world by making government and people conform to a religious ideology.

One might consider Iraq's constitution a success for Islamic militants. Saddam is gone and the U.S. will be leaving. Phase 3 involves the spread of Islamic values to the world. Liberal values are to be eradicated.

This, however, is not the whole story of the constitution. It also claims to establish freedom, equality and justice for all. It declares itself to be a non-sectarian, pluralist, representative, and democratic system of government. These are important features. Unfortunately, all are significantly compromised when the Quran is made the supreme authority.

When the constitution aligns "heavenly messages" and science, it fails to notice the different standards between scriptural and empirical methods of obtaining reliable knowledge. Religious language, whether it is Islamic, Hindu, Christian, Jewish or another, typically employs terms in a self-serving way. Basic concepts — knowledge, freedom, justice, equality — operate in a sectarian way in this constitution.

Since these matters were surely apparent to its framers, the incentive must have been to satisfy incompatible constituencies. The constitution is like a stack of cards drawn from two games with different rules. In this game, however, the Western values are under the control of Islamic rules.

Considering the rationale for the war, the U.S. administration has effectively abandoned those ideals. Even if the current Iraqi leadership were capable of managing the country, it would be a system of administration guided by a constitution that violates fundamental human values. The prospect of winning by means of implementing non-sectarian inalienable and universal rights is completely unrealistic.

Such circumstances in Iraq and elsewhere should increase our awareness not only of the tenuous nature of a liberal democracy but especially alert us to the daunting challenge of attempting to transform an established sectarian culture into a liberal one.

The continuing casualties, disrupted lives, and destruction on the ground in Iraq are significant, to be sure. But so are the casualties in ideas, values and conceptions of right government. The U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, it should be noted, is similarly afflicted.

If a liberal democracy is the ideal, the U.S. will have succeeded in Iraq by replacing one form of tyranny with another. True, some tyrannies are better than others, but all are offensive to human dignity that is best realized, respected and protected in a liberal political setting.

Don Blakeley is a resident of Honolulu and a retired professor of philosophy. Reach him at dblakehawaii@gmail.com. He wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.