First of all, Canada gets away with not having all kinds of things that other similarly situated nations find necessary. Comes from having oceans on three sides, a high resource to populace ratio and only sharing borders with a trusted, and very powerful neighbor.

Second, I have never proclaimed that a constitution is some magic cure-all for insurgency. What I have stated, and stand by, is:

A. That the US Constitution is a masterpiece of COIN and that it was designed by a group of former insurgents for the express purpose of preventing the nation from succumbing to insurgency. Preventative COIN, which is far superior to reactive COIN.

and

B. That the current constitution in Afghanistan is a primary causal driver of the insurgency there. Far more so than the UW efforts of Pakistan or a number of other states that are waging UW there; and far more so than the UW efforts of AQ. It is the constitution that codifies the illegitimacy of government at all levels. It is the constitution that codifies corruption. It is the constitution that codifies injustice and effective exclusion from participation in economic and political opportunity to anyone that Karzai wants to deny it to.

C. It is therefore my stated position that Reconciliation is the #1 Critical task to attaining stability in Afghanistan; and that such reconciliation MUST be accompanied by a constitutional loya jirga. Not because a constitution is a cure-all; but because the current constitution is the primary source of insurgency and instability and must be replaced.

Lastly on this topic I have suggested that,

D. That when viewed through the lens of insurgency and COIN there are tremendous lessons to be learned from both the process the produced the US constitution (I highly recommend David O Stewart's "The Summer of 1787") and from the intent and nature of the content (rather than the specific terms of the provisions.

I studied Constitutional law in law school and we never talked about insurgency or counterinsurgency either one. I think law schools get so focused in subsequent case law that they miss out on a very significant and amazing aspect of this document.