Dying to Separate?

I was going to stay away from middle east wars for a little while, but then I read a review for Peter Galbraith's new book, "The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End."

The review notes that Galbraith argues that because we've been unable to create a stable government in Iraq, their Civil War (yes Virginia, Iraq is in Civil War) will continue to rage as we try to cling to the administration's self-deluded stance that the Iraqi government will be able to create/maintain a stable nation.

Galbraith points out that rather than clinging to that delusion, we need to look at the reality of what Iraq was before Hussein, and how it held together under him. David Ignatius, in reviewing the book, argues that point of the gun was only a part of it. That Galbraith's argument "misses the yearning for modernism and secular society that animated the educated middle class in the old Iraq." Ignatius argues that "despite its troubling prescription, Galbraith's book is important because, as much as any American, he has lived the Iraq tragedy up close and personal."

What Bush & Co. should consider now is helping Iraq form three separate nations, based on more natural constituencies. Kurdistan in the north, an Iranian-dominated Shiaistan in the south, a Sunnistan in the northwest.

Supporting or opposing Galbraith's theories, the book certainly sounds like it sets forth some interesting questions. Here's a link to Ignatius' review.