[prman]

Although seemingly so, there is no contradiction, historically speaking, between these statements. Turkey was secularized through the strongarm efforts of Kemal Ataturk, who was reviled by the Muslim community, as were reformers like Nasser, King Farouk, Sadat, Hafes-al-Asad, and the Shah in Iran. Lebanon had a written constitution, but no central religion; and it had a large Christian population. The former Soviet Republics have an uncertain future and still struggle with these problems.

With these the only exceptions, the rest of the Islamic world has never maintained a democracy, only family dynasties, monarchies, or in the case of Saddam, Baath socialist party hegemony.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Turkey was secularized through the strongarm efforts of Kemal Ataturk

. . . and I doubt not that our efforts in Iraq will be seen in a similar light. We do have the excuse that, as "strongarm efforts" go, we are unlikely to hold a candle to Saddam Hussain.

Iraq is in a bind, and the people have to know it. The country has natural resources certainly, and I hope that we can help them parlay that wealth into prosperity rather than sadistic tyranny. But the relation of the Kurds with Turkey is problematic except within Iraq, and the Kurds are a source of friction within Iraq. Likewise the Sunnis.

Basically to make a stable country you have to gerrymander the Shi'ites so that their majority status doesn't tempt them to arrogance. To do that you need something resembling our Senate, preferably the pre-Seventeenth Amendment version. I would even venture that their legislature might best consist only of such a senate, or that the popular side of any bicameral legislature should have relatively weak powers.

It would also be wise to institute term limits in all offices, and (to give them incentives to create a limited government) to make the constitutional convention members ineligible to run the government they create.