There will be democracy in Iraq because the Iraqis themselves want it. Why Andreas sees the three competing groups, Shia, Sunni and Kurds as an argument against democracy is beyond me. In a democracy they have the best chance of having the most say. As Andreas himself notes, no single group can wield absolute control so the reasonable thing to do is adopt a system where they can have as much control as possible. All the groups recognize this as a democratic system. Each of these groups has pushed for democracy. The problem isn't if there will be a democracy but rather the shape of that democracy. Is it proportional or representational? Andreas misunderstands my point about Iraqi civil war not being the business of the US. An early plan for the invasion of Iraq was to seize the oil fields and ignore the rest of the country. (This would have undermined Saddam and made it more likely that he would be overthrown by the Iraqis themselves instead of by the US.) If civil war broke out, the US could secure the oil fields and leave the rest of the country for the civil war. My point, however, is that it is not the business of the US to settle the internal disputes of other countries. This is a matter of principle and my guess is that Andreas agrees with me on this. Bush was first elected on a platform of avoiding nation building and he is supported by conservatives who still believe this. 9-11 forced Bush to alter this but I believe the Bush administration is ideologically opposed to running the business of other countries. It seems to me that the guiding principle for Bush is that countries can do as they like, within reason, as long as they do not support terrorism. My guess is that Bush would allow any situation, including civil war, to develop in Iraq as long as it did not lead towards support of terrorism. Since US troops will be in Iraq for a long time, the Iraqis will have to deal with the 800 pound gorilla in the room, which will moderate any extremism that might develop in the government. I think this is a far more realistic picture of Iraq then Andreas' vision of a fundamentalist government using its billions to buy nukes. In my earlier post, I didn't make clear enough my sarcasm regarding the help Iraq could expect from France and Germany. I don't think they would intervene nor would the UN be able to intervene without the US. I agree with Andreas that the US has badly damaged its credibility, but I also think the US has made clear that it will act when it thinks it has to. Nobody should underestimate how important that fact is for the countries in the region. The Middle East had a certain dynamic that had developed over the last thirty years or so and, for better or worse, the Bush administration has radically altered it. In my opinion, the US has gained in respect in the Middle East because it has threatened force and carried through on its threat. As seen in bin Laden, the US had been viewed with contempt because it made threats but when it was attacked (eg Beirut, USS Cole, Embassy bombings in Africa, etc) it did little. The US was seen as fat, decadent and weak. Even the first Gulf war and the fact that Bush Sr. refused to wipe out Saddam was seen as a sign of weakness. But that has radically changed. No country in that region wants to be the next Iraq and no country doubts that Bush would invade if sufficiently provoked. And if there is more trouble in the region, the countries will look to the US because they know it will act. On the other hand, who can count on France or Germany? Sincerely, Phil Enns Toronto, ON ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html