Turkey is not an important consideration in all this. The Kurds will do as they see fit to do(ie. what they feel will be of most use to their interests), and Turkey's viewpoint will be of some but not overwhelming interest to them.

I think this 'glitch' will be overcome soon as the Sunnis are more or less convinced that they will not be 'stiffed' on the OIL. Or not, but either way the Kurds and the Shias will NEVER consent to starting the whole damn process from the beginning and some form of Constitution will be presented for ratification.

It is not just the Sunnis who oppose however. I suspect that many Iraqis are none too fond of the 'Islamic' flavour supported by the Shia religious Parties. There will have to be compromises,on the basis of --- You can keep your people under Sharia if you wish, but take a big hike if you also want ME to be constrained by it as well.

No big deal unless it all breaks down in gunfire and explosions.

Getting the many Iraqi factions to agree to a secular form of constitutional government was never going to be easy and is perhaps Bush's greatest gamble. None of the Islamic countries have any real experience with representative government. Even their concept of 'free' elections is tightly controlled in terms of which candidates are permitted to run and in many cases are merely a venue to chose the tyrant of the year. Actually, considering the emnity between the various groups (Kurds, Sunnis, Bathists, Shiites) it's a marvel they have come this far. However, I predict the greatest challenge will be from the Shiites who want to impose a Islamic base government (Sharia) on the nation.

If a democratic Iraq embraces Sharia law we will have failed. Iraq would be better off under colonial rule than self-government by religious thugs.

Could we sell Iraq to Turkey? They seem to have the whole secular state thing nailed down.

If this national assembly does not have the mindset required to produce a meaningful Iraqi constitution, then it is best to dissolve and re-elect the assembly than settle for a prop. It is more important to get it right, than to get it “right now.”

As Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari noted, “We should not be hasty regarding the issues and the constitution should not be born crippled.” The constitution must be meaningful – a living, breathing document that can be a foundation for the long road towards a real democracy in a united Iraq.

The problem here is to make sure that we don't sow the seeds of the next war in how we settle this one. That's the lesson of the Treaty of Versailles, probably the most misbegotten "peace" treaty in history. It virtually guaranteed another war by its terms.

Creation of an independent Kurdistan would certainly be popular with the Kurds, and we must be cognizant of the fact that they were the only Iraqis who actively joined us to fight against Saddam when we invaded. (For reasons of self-interest, of course, but the fact remains.)

However, if an independent Kurdistan comes into existence, it's only a matter of time before it ends up fighting a border war with Turkey and/or with Iran. I think even the Kurds know that, which is why they aren't really working as hard to demand tripartition as they might be. Their best case is for a strongly federal Constitution which permits the Kurdish region a great deal of independence while at the same time retaining Kurdish membership in a united Iraq, which would guarantee Kurdish security against Turkey and Iran.

By the same token, if the nation were split into three, with the Sunnis in their own oil-poor segment, it would only be a matter of time before it ended up in open warfare with the Shiite fragment.

Prudence suggests it's better to look for an arrangement now that will prevent both of those situations, and the people in Iraq know it.

By the way, partition also wouldn't be all that straightforward, because the three populations aren't quite as segregated as all of that. Saddam actively worked to move Sunnis into other regions of the nation, and cities like Baghdad and Mosul have large numbers of them mixed in with the Shiites and Kurds (respectively). Tripartition would have all the attraction of the dissolution of Yugoslavia, what with orphan populations being stranded in the "wrong" parts and becoming downtrodden minorities.

Not only would tripartition virtually guarantee future border wars, it would guarantee future terrorist revolutionary movements. Think "Northern Ireland" multiplied by 50. Or think about the Serbs and Croats in Bosnia.

Ethnically cleansing each of the three parts would be controversial (to say the least) and painful and horrendously difficult, especially since there are now quite a few mixed marriages out there.

Wow,

Ace, the esteem with which I hold your blog has just shot up dramatically. No more AD&D jokes from me.

Steven, you're the reason I started reading blogs years back and even after your retirement (a year ago?) I still had you as the first page that opened in my opera browser for quite a long time. I really thought it was only a matter of time until somebody started a blog called "Den Beste Shrugged".

I'm sorry to fawn over you here, but I still have a print-out of your post about the Palestinian girl blowing herself up and how that must affect their culture. That, along with so many other posts of yours have truly changed the way many of my friends (and myself) view the world.

I truly regret that I contributed one of those "helpful" e-mails that pointed out a small, irrelevent omission in one of your posts. When I read those were partly the reason you gave up regular posting I felt like such an idiot. Especially because it was in small part motivated by a little jealousy of your intelligence and there was a chance to show "hey I know something Den Beste doesn't."

By the way, if I can get Britney Spears to pose with some of that maple syrup you want, will you start blogging again?