Anything that happens in Iraq is interesting, and this symbolises the tyranical Iraqui government's destruction. But the new government was very weak to the point that America was practically running the country.

A great symbolic story, but this was hardly any indication of the emergence self-government in Iraq.

Establishing a working government in Iraq has proven to be quite difficult. The country is extremely fragmented. The country is basically divided into three sub-units; the Shi'ites, the Sunnis and the Kurds. All three of these entities have the potential of splitting up into individual entities. The Shi'ites consist of about 60% of the population in the country and they have found a charismatic leader in the form of the Ayatollah Sistani. He has been saying in the past few days that he does not approve of a caucus plan to elect representatives to a new legislative body to be established this year. He has warned that there will be major insurrections if the Americans impose a puppet leadership in Iraq which deprives the Shi'ites of power. They may very well align themselves more closely with the Iranians. There has been a dramatic interplay between Iraq and Iran since the time of the Babylonians and the Persians. The most recent flareup was during the 1980's. The threat of the balance going towards Iran is very probable here, and that will be a major setback to us. The Shi'ites were quiet during and after the war, now they are chafing under the occupation. Sistani may very well prove to be the lynchpin in the region; anti-American protests are rising in the region and the Iraq Governing Council is seen as nothing more than a weak and ineffectual organization slapped together by the Americans. Establishing a government that is viable and suitable towards American interests is a difficult proposal. Yes, they hated Saddam, but they don't like the Americans either. Here's the lesson of the day: you can't impose a certain variant of democracy on a group of people and expect that they will accept it. The American way works well for us, but it is arrogant of us to think that a US Constitution sold lock, stock and barrel will work for other nations with different histories. Iraq is an artifical state established by the British and the French. People see themselves through their tribal units first and then as Iraqis. The Kurds in the north want their own nation and if they get it, the Turks will intercede. Their Prime Minister said so on January 6. I hate to sound negative, because I always do when I talk about the Middle East, but our policy in region is very short-sighted and at the same time idealistic. Yes, our troops and the Iraqi Governing Council have allowed for greater freedom and infrastrcture is slowly being re-built. But we must also acknowledge that there is a very significant insurgency in the country; a guerrilla war. These people are not all pro-Saddam either, they are people who don't want us there. We need to have a full account of what is happening on the ground. The reality is that our occupation is tenuous at best. There are no easy solutions here folks. If we leave, the country will break out in civil war for sure; plus Turkey, Iran and other regional powers will get involved in the conflict. It won't just be about Iraq anymore. But that's for another topic. The bottom line is that the governing council is ineffective; it has no moral authority whatsoever.