I don't see what's so bad about this. "...more regions, tribes, or towns will turn to their own leaders—instead of to the elected national officials—for protection..."

it's either this, or a strong federal government wielding control over a gigantic swatch of jerrymandered lands. i think we all know about the British and their "let's just draw some arbitrary lines" fiasco. i think we know how that worked out for the Kurds in "northern Iraq" and for Kuwait.

i think we also know what a strong federal government means for individual liberty and the growth of fascism.

so, really, what's wrong with this?

seems to me that acceptance that a strong federal government needed to be installed -- and now propped up -- is what is keeping the US in Iraq.