In a word, "no."

Jambo wrote ...

Once again, it's not my intention to sound defeatist. I have a very deep fear of sectarian violence morphing into flat out ethnic cleansing genocide. Separating the groups into their own states could stop that crisis before it begins. Is it worth it?

The unintended consequences of this I think would be immense. If you put a Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd state side by side then aren't you simply repeating the mistake the Brits made in the 1920's, rather then undoing it? Iraq is an established nation as of 2008 - isn't subsequently cutting it up once again the West arbitrarily drawing literal lines in the sand in an attempt to best benefit us? And I'm not against benefiting us, don't get me wrong, but their was and remains a noble sentiment in liberating the Iraqi people and I think we lose that to a great extent in this partition plan.

Also, doesn't a Shiite nation become a proxy for Iran? And as you pointed out, this gives Iran an overall region-wide strategic advantage. And lets add this - consider a replay of the current hostilities between India and Pakistan. And to say Turkey goes bonkers over an independent Kurdistan is putting it lightly - they might go to war!

And lets add this element - these populations are not currently already sitting in finely divided, self-segregated regions. To some extent they are, but it is undeniable that there would need to be a mass "diaspora" of tens of thousands of Iraqis from where they currently are into new settlements in their religious/ethnic specific "nation." Can anyone say American Indian? Instead of tribes you'll have entire families, if not neighborhoods, that find themselves in the "wrong" part of the country as the lines are drawn up, and the long "trek in the sun" will begin in order to resettle them.

And you have another huge thorn in that side - at least two of the factions will fight to the death in order to claim Baghdad as within their geographical make-up.

Add to that you now have to stand up 3 parliaments; find 3 viable leaders; stand up 3 armies, etc, etc.

AND this somewhat sets aside the fact that real progress on limiting sectarian violence is currently under way - should we upset that apple cart and give them a whole new round of reasons to kill each other? I'm not being shitty, I sincerely see that as the end result.

I am of the opinion that not only is it too late now, it would have been a catastrophe in the beginning as well. I think it gives even more reasons to continue sectarian violence, only in a three state solution it would simply be called "war with your neighbors."

And just one thought on a monarchy as a rallying point to Iraqi hegemony. Even though it would be ceremonial, the global media spin, and in circles like Al Sadir's militia, this will be undoubtedly spoken of as if here we are, once again the West is going to install their puppet "strong man." It will be yet another reason for those whom want violence to rally people to their cause. "This is their democracy"?" they'll shout. Symbols, as you two have noted this king would be, can be used as symbols for your enemy's desires as well - symbols such as these risk a double edged sword and I think one more sword in this nation isn't what is needed right now.