The loose federation embodied by the Articles of Confederation sprung to my mind, too (although there wasn't a standing national army).  But it's hard to think that our history gives reason for optimism in Iraq.

Although there were significant differences between the original 13 colonies (as played out in the Constitutional compromises), they were maily economic in nature.  There was nothing remotely comparable to the strife and bad blood that exists (and has existed) between Kurds, Shi'ia and Sunnis.  

Virginia hadn't brutally launched Sarin attacks against New York, Georgia hadn't enjoyed de facto autonomy from King George for the previous decade, and New Hampshire didn't have hundreds of years of cultural and religious ties to Canada.  

Oh, and the thirteen had just worked together to successfully complete a six-year rebellion against an oppressive government.

What comes close as a unifier in today's Iraq?

" How are the various militias in Iraq different from the state militias that existed at the founding of the US?"

Well, for one, the various Iraqi militias represent factions with a history of murderous violence toward one another. Additionaly these militias have been involved in a low intensity civil war with one another for at least the last few months.

Better Pollyannas, please. 

After reading Bruce's post, the thought also occurred to me that the 3 fractional militias would be the equivalent of our national guards in different states.  But I do not know for sure.

Bruce might be shedding light on a problem that could arise though, that it might be dangerous to have separate militias at this stage in the game (makes it easier for a civil war conflict to happen if tempers flare - say if some units within one of the fractional militia open fire on another fractional militia on their own, if there isn't enough order established yet in these young armies, it could conceivably explode to an outright civil war.)

I'd like to hear Gen. Clark's opinion on this development.  I guess it all depends on how much order there is in place with these military branches, and that Gen. Clark might not even know since he's not on the ground in Iraq seeing it for his own eyes.

Is there enough time to get the sunni's registered to vote?  I think focusing on that might be best at this point, better than cancelling the ratification election.

The point Jane makes about the permanent military bases is very important IMO.  A buddy of mine has mentioned to me, I don't know if it is true or not, that the press seems to be not covering the story at all regarding the huge air bases that the U.S. has built in Iraq.  My buddy thinks the sole reason for this war was to have those as U.S. air bases in the middle east.  If there is any truth to this - I think it is a huge mistake.  And I'm no military expert at all, i've never served a day (although I did attempt to sign up for navy reserve yet answered honestly about the "ever try pot?" question, back in my naive "honesty is the best policy days.")  

The reason why I think it would be a huge mistake is twofold:

* Our navy is very powerful.  We can launch more missiles then we'd ever need from submarines alone, and they can hide out wherever they want in the persian gulf.  Aircraft carriers are mobile and act as airbases.

* It does not follow the "false jihad" psychological warfare strategy that I think the Iraq War might be about, and that I advocate.  If we get out of Iraq entirely, and Iraq is able to wage war with Al Queda, support for Al Queda in the arab nations is extinguished.  We win the war on terrorism, or at the least we win the most important battle - the propaganda battle.  But if we leave permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, Al Queda can claim that they're jihad is still a true jihad, there is no false jihad outcome.

I haven't had the opportunity to look at the Iraqi constitution, but it's conceivable--and in my opinion likely--that the naitonal government will have the sole power to direct the use of force.

In response to Ben and Bill 's comments - perhaps the real reason we havn't drawn down yet is the concern over possible civil war between any 2 (or 3) of the 3 "states" in Iraq, sunni, shia, and khurd.  There may be less of a chance for civil war when big brother is in the school yard so to speak.

Ben makes a reasoned point wondering why no draw down of troops yet.  I can only compute it must be either A. civil war prevention, or B. we aren't general Abizaid, we are arm chair generals half way around the world, and therefore we just don't know what is necessary.  I think i'd put more money on reason A. though myself.

Reason C. is if there is still a need to provide a honeypot to attract Al Queda into Iraq to ensure muslims bomb muslims, which is what you need to win the psychological war on terror.  But I am sure Ben and Bill will both question this thinking that the honey pot has already been provided enough, that they advocate a withdrawal starting now, and over time, not a cut and run.

This is a good speech.  I think our focus as Dems, should be on the disconnects within our own country's policies by the GOP regarding this, the Bush Administrations priority.  I can think of 2 disconnects, can others think of more?  1. ANWR.  If we become oil independent, what will our friends, who's democracy we protect and nurture with lives, limbs and dollars, export to have their economies continue to run?  Sand?  Camels?  2. "war on extremism" I believe the Pres. is quoted as saying in the above linked speech.  Yet we all feel the GOP has tried to make inroads towards weakening the separation between church and state on our own soil.  Sorry to have commented with a change in subject on this last "disconnect in objective" paragraph, you can comment if you want on my blog entry in readers blog on this point, it probably doesn't belong in this blog thread as it is a change of subject.

I think we should question whether there will be any permanent U.S. military bases long term in Iraq or not, as I think it is important  to not have any permanent military bases.  I agree with Ben, I don't think we need them.  I don't think we need them in saudi arabia either.  It makes a better case for "false jihad" if we don't have any permanent military bases in the middle east, but instead hide missile launching subs in the waters nearby, and have aircraft carriers not too far off from the middle east.

The Americans seem to have gotten them­selves into an intractable mess in Iraq. They must now choose between a historical debacle if they hang on and a temporary setback if they let go.

"We cannot leave Iraq before it is stabilized," declared a former CIA officer. But to maintain a prolonged foreign occupation of Iraq is to destabilize it only further. Once the invader departs, there will no doubt be a civil war, which will accelerate the dismemberment of the nation, giving rise to a fundamentalist regime, which will make at least some people miss the era of Saddam.

On the other hand, if the occupation persists, one can foresee a multifaceted terrorist es­calation eating away at U.S. forces and aggravating ethnic and religious divisions. The Americans will bring in reinforcements, including Fijians and Norwegians. They'll talk of the final fifteen minutes and of last gasps. A coup d'etat or uprising will be inspired in Teheran (terrain more favorable to the West than Iraq is) but with irritating repercussions in Najaf, which will be transformed into a base of retreat for vengeful ayatollahs. The Americans will cling to Iraq as "useful" and ensconce themselves inside supposedly unbreachable bastions. Then, as the death toll mounts by the hundreds, the "bring the boys home" movement will spread like an oil slick across the United States, and a new, Democratic administration will make the prudent decision to stop the hemorrhaging when the vital interests of the United States are not at stake. But how many lives will be ruined in the meantime?

If you care about understanding Iraq, I encourage you to read this terrific piece just up on Salon...This book sounds like a must read:

 
http://salon.com/books/review/2005/10/07/packer/index.html

p.s. reminds me of this quote I posted elsewhere a couple of days ago:

Ideals are dangerous things. Realities are better. - Oscar Wilde.