Teribus--

You're very slippery--but your own words betray you. " In Bosnia...in Iraq" is obviously a comparative constuction--equating the two. And it's not only your idea--but you're right. Good try in backing off from it. But as they say, a card laid is a card played.

In 16 years Iraq will be as much a unified country as Yugoslavia is now.

As I said, "Kurdistan" is already de facto independent from "Iraq". They don't even want the Iraqi flag flown.   They make their own oil deals--including with Turkey, and that is what may quiet the current friction.

"Kurdistan" is the obvious fallback position for the US--as I said last year, having read it in the WSJ.   The Kurds obviously have oil--and will have more, with the Kirkuk area, by the end of the year. They are positively inclined towards the US--at this point, anyway, having benefited since 1990 from the Western support and defense against Saddam. They are progessively more Western-oriented, trying to attract well-heeled tourists from all over. They even have gated communities--as you might imagine, not cheap. And they have no objection to US forces close by, in case Turkish relations should decay drastically, despite economic incentives.

Regardless of what else happens, the US will still stay in "Kurdistan".

And the Shiite south will watch with interest--and an eye towards a similar arrangement regarding oil, though not regarding US troops.

Dickey doesn't need to worry about when the US should break up Iraq. The Iraqis are doing a fine job of it.