All the commentators agree that America " must maintain the territorial integrity of Iraq.


Well, first, Lincoln maintained the territorial integrity of the United States. What Lincoln felt was good for Americans is also good for Iraqis.

Actually Iraq is a ridiculous combination of hostile peoples. Iraq was set up by the British Empire. Why should the "territorial integrity" of a British colony be important for Iraqis?

But the moment we start talking about "what is good for Iraqis" we start imposing Abraham Lincoln on a former colony.

One reason you get a dictator like Saddam in a place like Iraq is because it takes a despot to hold that hostile, ridiculous combination together.

What we should do is look to our own interests. It would be better to split Iraq up into smaller, more homogeneous and stable units. Iraq cannot be a democracy and keep its present geography.

We don't know what is good for Iraq, but we do know that a united Iraq has been bad for us. If each people makes an agreement on the basis of what they know is best for themselves, we might get a rational conclusion out of this.

That's not going to happen. We've learned nothing. We are going to send Abe Lincoln ghost to Iraq.

We are also going to join OPEC against ourselves. We should use Iraq to break OPEC. That would be a terrific service to our own people. The despots who rule in the Islamic world would not be able to control the world with their oil.

That's not going to happen. All the commentators are glorying in the fact that this war will do nothing for us.

There is nothing complicated about why America wins wars and loses the peace. We are winning a war and losing a peace right now.