[San Jacinto]

Why we decided that a guarantee ot the territorial integrity of "Iraq" was a good idea, I cannot fathom except as some kind of misguided multiculturalism.

Do you think it is misguided multiculturalism, or is it resigned pragmatism? When you start thinking about the ramifications of breaking the "country" up (such as it is), it boggles the imagination. The south would undoubtedly align with Iran. This would leave the center landlocked, and would essentially make Iran a "bordering neighbor" to Kuwait. It would seemingly make Iran a huge oil producer.

It would lead to the creation of a Kurdistan to the north and possibly destabilze Turkey. We might gain some short sighted gratification fom seeing Turkey suffer, but they are the only democratic Muslim state, and a NATO ally.

It probably is best to leave Iraq intact and see if it can function as some sort of federation. It ain't gonna be easy.

[Congressman Billybob]

The Swiss federation of its 21 (?) cantons is the proper model for a post-war Iraq. Some of the Swiss cantons are majority German, some majority French, a few majority Italian. Switzerland managed to survive both World War I and World War II without turning into a continual bloodbath, despite those antagonisms among its own population.

That is exactly the result that we should seek in post-war Iraq. "Loose federalism" means a very high degree of independence for local governance for each of these groups, WITHIN THE AREAS WHERE THEY ARE DOMINANT, but without any ability to overwhelm the others in their areas.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, not yet up on UPI, and FR, "The A-MAA-zing War Wizard"

Latest book(let), "to Restore Trust in America."