I dearly hope all those things are possible -- well, except trying to disarm the Iraqi citizenry, which strikes me as both unlikely to defang the real villains and an infringement on the right of self-defense -- but I fear that the attempt to impose a Western-style democracy on Iraq might be more difficult to do than to hope for.

Democracy hasn't worked out well in Africa. Even in the places where its forms are observed, it doesn't usually function in the fashion a Westerner would expect -- attending to public needs while maintaining respect for individual rights and the rule of law. It appears to require a level of local ideological maturation that doesn't exist in the places where European colonial powers once ruled. Even India, "the world's largest democracy" nurtured under the classical-liberal British, is closer to being a fascist dictatorship than a place marked by freedom.

Now, it's possible that Iraq is ready for a Western-style democracy. I'd like that. But I wouldn't be surprised if we had to impose a MacArthur-style benevolent despotism for several years, to lay the groundwork for the new system as we did in postwar Japan. Should that prove necessary, we should treat it as one of the obligations of a liberator.

One thing I'd add to your list is setting up a local, multi-ethnic professional army. A central government cannot exercise control over fractuous regions without the force to bring them into line. In the short term, that force will be provided by the US, but any exit strategy has to involve building up a real force the government can call its own.

Of course, the problem with this, as has been demonstrated dozens of times the world over, is that in a new democracy in a chaotic condition like IRaq, the cold fact that ultimate power rests with the army is glaringly apparent.

And given that, army generals (and colonels and sergeants) are often not willing to buy into the idea of civilian control. This is the central problem of government from the Roman Empire to Pakistan.

I have no answers, but I think this is the billion dollar question in any nation building job.

I gotta agree with Francis that trying to disarm the population is a good idea. Gun control doesn't work anywhere else, why should it work there. Instead, I say give a gun to every man, woman, and child over the age of 12 and tell them that they'd better hang on to it, or you won't give them any of their other rights, either.

That'll take them right out of victimhood. And when there are no victims, how can you have oppressors? You don't. You have civilised people ready to talk about things in a calm manner, or you have a bunch of dead cocksuckers. Either way, problem gets solved real quick.

Sorry. I meant disarming the population is a BAD idea. Boy I'm retahded.

Complete Iraqi independence, culminating with a Treaty of Friendship between Iraq, the US, UK, Australia, Jordan, (Israel? Why not? Pre-Mullah Iran and Israel were quite friendly) and any other friendly nation.

Oh man, that would be simply awesome to go from an Iraq actively promoting and supporting Palestinian terrorism to one that denounces it and upholds Israel's right to exist peacefully.

But I'm sure it would "destabilize" too many vicious oppressive governments to be of any use, eh? Wouldn't want any change out there.