The Constitution of the United States is unique in that it was framed by people who realized firsthand the capabilities and destructiveness of a powerful government, understood that in the absence of government coalitions of forces can more easily take their lives, liberty and property, and could envision a government that had limited power. The founders anticipated what problems might arise in the new government and corrected for them as much as possible. They too, realized that a Constitution that lacked enforcement would be ignored.
Lacking in the Iraq constitution is the right to keep and bear arms. Instead, one is allowed to keep, bear, buy and sell arms only with permission via licensure and other laws. You might effectively argue that this is identical, in practice, to the United States. While our Constitution guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms and makes no mention of licenses, permits or registration, to sell firearms as a business requires a license, to carry firearms in a manner which makes them less visible to others requires a permit. In one sense, you might argue that the Iraq constitution is consistent with the inevitable. However, the Iraq constitution is internally inconsistent, containing the right to property and liberty on one hand, then removing any written assurance that the government will not take either away.