Some of us are old enough to remember when the United States decided to invade Iraq for reasons that were never adequately explained. But we didn't go there simply to "defeat" Iraq or hunt for imaginary weapons of mass destruction. The invasion quickly evolved into a transformative "project." We were going to modernize and westernize the Iraqis, freeing them from the bonds of their oppressive Muslim society. There would be free, open elections where the voices of the people would ring out and commerce would flourish, delivering prosperity and opportunity for all. Near the top of the list of goals would be an end to the oppression of women, who were typically treated as property by Muslim men. Of course, as soon as the Americans left, that all went out the window. Now the Iraqi Parliament is preparing to take another giant leap toward the past by amending the country's Personal Status Law, eliminating virtually all women's rights, and lowering the minimum age of marriage for girls to nine years and fifteen years for boys. And the change would go much further than that. (Breitbart)

The Iraqi Parliament began to debate amendments to the Personal Status Law on Sunday that would, critics say, effectively dissolve the country’s universal standards to protect women and girls on matters such as consent to marriage, alimony, and custody of children by allowing men to opt out, choosing traditional Shiite or Sunni Islamic mandates, instead. While child marriages, sex slavery, and other abuses are rampant in modern-day Iraq, they are not technically legal. Iraqi law currently requires both men and women to be 18 years old to enter marriage, allows a woman to inherit her husband’s assets in the event of his death, and allows for unconditional inter-religious marriage.

The amendments to the secularized Personal Status Law, passed in 1959, would allow the relevant men in a marriage or proposed marriage to choose whether to apply Sunni sharia rules or Shiite sharia. It does not discuss other religions, such as Christianity, Zoroastrianism, or the Yazidi faith, which once boasted vibrant constituencies in Iraq but were almost entirely exterminated by the Islamic State (ISIS) “caliphate” in the past decade. Members of minority religions would most likely have to abide by the current form of the Personal Status Law.

You can consider this disappointing if you like, but it was probably inevitable from the beginning. We were never going to be able to take Iraq's society and suddenly turn it into that of downtown Manhattan. You can't simply shut off thousands of years of ingrained cultural traditions as if you were flipping a switch. I'm sure there were some Iraqi women who were enthusiastic about obtaining new freedoms, but for most of them, it was a foreign concept. In Muslim societies around the world, girls and women are treated as property. It's all they've ever known. Look at what happened to women and girls in Afghanistan the moment we pulled out.

These revised rules will no doubt come as a shock to many westerners. The system provides that girls can enter a legal marriage at age nine and boys at age 15. Of course, the girls will require the consent of their father, brother, or other male relative. If the couple later divorces (at the demand of the husband), the father is automatically given custody of any children unless he chooses to give up custody to the mother, who will be financially responsible for the care of the children. There is also a provision allowing what are known as "pleasure marriages" which can last for as little as one hour. This is obviously nothing short of legalized prostitution of children against their will. 

These parliamentary changes are being primarily driven by radical Shiite Islamist clerics. They were always a powerful faction in Iraq since the fall of Sadaam Hussein, but now they are clearly controlling most of the society in Iraq. They are also closely aligned with the Shites in Iran, which is another disturbing trend. Not everyone is going along with the proposal quietly, however. There are reportedly protests planned in as many as seven provinces this week. What impact (if any) that may wind up having remains to be seen. Yet these recent developments should serve as a reminder of how foolish it was for the United States to dip a toe into the centuries-old conflict between the Shiites and the Sunni.  Either side will gladly accept help from the west when it's offered if it gives them a temporary advantage over their rivals. But they have no interest in adopting our moral codes or ethics. They come from a different world and there is little appetite for change.