"Oh, but things are going so well in Iraq...."

It's funny. The Head-in-the-Sand crowd likes to insist that Iraq is on the road to Utopian bliss, now that a courageous man like George W. Bush had the moral clarity to stare evil in the face. These people, who'd be just as likely to tell you that stories of the holocaust were an agenda of the liberal media, just refuse to entertain the idea that the State cannot create, it can only destroy.

So, I see these two articles this morning:

Bloody day heralds birth of Iraq's new unity government

Iraq's new unity government was approved by parliament in Baghdad yesterday in what may be the last chance to hold Iraq together as a unitary state.

Biden Explains the Need for Iraqi Decentralization

Senator Joe Biden (D-Del), the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed that Iraq should be divided into three separate ethno-religious regions, Kurdish, Shiite, and Sunni—with a central government positioned in Baghdad.

In his essay, Biden justified this argument by writing that this proposition was designed to, "maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious group…room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central government in charge of common interests."

A couple of things stand out... The first is that ideas Libertarians were proposing 4 years ago, are now being considered a likely possibility for Iraq's fate. Many writers discussed various plans for breaking up Iraq into three separate countries. Were these ideas taken seriously? Of course not. At the time, Americans were enthralled by Neocons Delusions of Grandeur, and the suggestion that we could not simply remove Government "A" (aka. Saddam) and replace it with Government "B" would strike a blow to their religious faith in the State. Also, an independent Kurdish state was bound piss off our allies in Turkey, who have a sizeable Kurdish population there that would love to secede from their Turkish oppressors, and we can't have that, can we?

The second thing is that a Democrat is proposing federalism as the solution to Iraq's problems. Great, Joe! And while we're at it, let's get some of that here in America! What do you say?

But I have to ask...why is a supposed "liberal Democrat" proposing a federalist system for Iraq? Where are all the "constitutionalist" Conservatives? For all the talk by Conservatives that they honor the original meaning of the Constitution, they are being out-flanked by those eeeevilll liberals on exactly that point.

I know the answer. Because Conservatives only value that stuff when its fashionable. Conservatives have no principles. Conservatives worship power and "The Party" above principle, above liberty, and above what is good for America. Conservatives are megalomanics that watch politics like your average American watches ESPN. They are more concerned with who's up-and-coming in the ranks of the political cartels known as Democrats and Republican, then they are with thinking about the consequences of our policies. For them, public policy is merely a means to an end...the end being power for power's sake. They like to claim the moral high road, and tell you, "you should never, ever trust a Democrat", but when you look at what Conservatives do, and who Conservatives support and vote for, and what they spend all their waking moments trying to justify and defend, it becomes immediately apparent that they are no better than Liberals, and in fact may be worse because they lie about it.

While a federalist system may delay the inevitable break-up, secession seems to be the only real answer for Iraq. As a result, the grand experiment in nation-building will come to an end in a spectacular failure. Of course, any social policy that is defined by the apparatus of the State is bound to do so. Hopefully, they can wake up before too many more human beings are slaughtered.