[Mind-numbed Robot]

Your suggestion is, IMHO, one of the dangers they face. It matters not how a central government subdues its people - through terror, religion (or both in some cases), or with largesse from the public trough - the fact remains that an omnipotent central government results. That is not so bad as long as the government truly has the welfare of the people in mind but it doesn't take long nor much of a slip for ambitious and ruthless people to take charge. After all, Communism is designed, though fatally flawed, to be an avenue to heaven on earth. So what if several millions have to be killed and other millions re-educated through torture and prison, heaven is worth the price, especially if you are the stand-in for Saint Peter.

The most workable solution, given the history of tribal leaders, etc., is a version of democracy featuring ward politics with strong "precinct" leaders. I know that usually leads to corruption but it is a start. The corruption can be dealt with once the concept and system are in place.

Exactly what to do with the oil wealth is a key problem. State ownership mitigates against democracy and free enterprise. Perhaps a large private corporation with all citizens being stock holders would be a way.

What is really at stake here is the concept, oft repeated by Bush, that freedom is an innate and God-given right, yearned for by all. Is that true? I think it is and if it is then this plan for that region may work. If it is not true the destination is not worth the trip.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I take your point. But if the choice is between a secular, First-Amendment government with a Social Security system on the one hand, and a theocracy on the other hand, I'd want the former. It's probably the best the Iraqis can manage . . .