The British 'Times On Line' has published an article that if true, would finally be doing what should have been done when Iraq was transformed from dictatorship to hopeful-democracy.

Sarah Baker, writing from Washington, in "America ponders cutting Iraq in three", the 'Times' refers to an "...independent commission set up by Congress with the approval of President George W Bush may recommend carving up Iraq into three highly autonomous regions, according to well informed sources. The Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by James Baker, the former US secretary of state, is preparing to report after next month's congressional elections..."

I hate to say 'I told you so' but I will.

Shortly after America had won the battle for Iraq in record time, I sent an email (I know, a wasted effort, but I had to get it out of my system to someone) to the President's address at the White House. (Yes I KNOW! Humor me!)

In that letter I attached a map of Iraq and urged the President to step aside of politically 'correct' (means logically incorrect) parliamentary government for Iraq and urge them to adopt the American Democratic Republic form of government.

Of course, liberals would have screamed bloody murder that American was 'imposing' its form of government on another country, but they were perfectly fine with imposing the European parlimentary fiasco on them, then and are apparently perfectly willing to do so now.

That map, shown here in a smaller, less cumbersome form, was intended to divide Iraq into STATES.

Each STATE would be autonomous and ruled by their own people, elected by their own people and each would then fit within a FEDERAL national government that would have representatives of the STATES and the STATES' people. It would have distributed the government into its sectarian divisions and bound them together as a FEDERAL UNION instead of trying to force them to 'just all get along'.

According to the 'Times'; "The Baker commission has grown increasingly interested in the idea of splitting the Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish regions of Iraq as the only alternative to what Baker calls 'cutting and running' or 'staying the course'... His group will not advise 'partition', but is believed to favour a division of the country that will devolve power and security to the regions, leaving a skeletal national government in Baghdad in charge of foreign affairs, border protection and the distribution of oil revenue."

Minus the 'oil revenue' issue, what in the world do you think the American form of Federal Democratic Republic IS?

To the Brits, the idea is foreign. They call it a 'skeletal national government'. Well, that was what it was intended to be when the 'United "STATES" of America was formed.

The Federal Government was to take charge of foreign affairs, disputes between the states, protecting ALL the states, from outside influence and from each other. That changed. We fought a civil war over it and the issue was lost and 'states rights' was denegrated in favor of 'big brother' national government.

Now, while Iraq is showing a greater need than ever to be built upon a 'states' in 'union' model, it takes a special commission to think of it?

I don't think so.

The Chairman of the Senate armed services committee, John Warner, is quoted as saying; "In two to three months' time, if this thing hasn't come to fruition and this government (is not) able to function, I think it's a responsibility of our government internally to determine: is there a change of course we should take?"

Have there been mistakes made in the war for Iraq? You bet there have been. But while the press and liberal minds are concentrating on the obvious, at least the President and congress are working to correct the largest mistake made in the conflict.

A parliamentary 'unity' government cannot work when there is no unity in the country. A federal union of independent states, CAN, and should have, from the start.

But not to miss a step in the play book, the 'Times' quotes; Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, as saying; "They have finally noticed that the country is being partitioned by civil war and ethnic cleansing is already a daily event."

Then they explain the point: "Gelb is the co-author with Senator Joseph Biden, a leading Democrat, of a plan to divide Iraq. "There was almost no support for our idea until very recently, when all the other ideas being advocated failed," Gelb said."

No, Senator. It is NOT your plan. Had the White House paid any attention to the email it receives (on many issues) it would have been the right thing, at the right time. Instead, Mr. Rove, you are being outsmarted by an wannabe.

And the sad thing is: liberals hate the 'states rights' issue.

Then, when one of their poster-children will lay claim to wanting to impose it as a solution for Iraq, it is just fine, as long as they don't have to call it what it is.

A Federal Democratic Republic.