We invaded Iraq on the pretext that Saddam had WMD. Well, he acted like he had WMD and didn't come clean when spread-eagled up against the wall. So we went in and toppled him, because he was a bad actor, WMD or not. We're glad he didn't have them.
We've been surprised by the insurgency.
There's also a constitutional convention underway.
This leads a few folks to wonder whether it's possible to draw up a constitution for a place like Iraq. The Kurds in the north want to be free, the Shia in the south want no part, and the Sunni want to run the show or go home with their football.
In other words, they don't want to be in bed together. But a constitution is a marriage contract, for better or for worse, for now and forever, unless, of course, there's a civil war such as the one we had between the North and the South.
You don't need a written contract spelling out all the what-ifs in order to have a marriage, any more than you need a written contract (or constitution) to have a country. Britain has no written contract. We do. We still had a civil war. So did Britain.
Iraq is trying to patch together a marital contract for three groups of people who are stuck in bed together, don't want to be there, and have no place to go. They either have to figure something out to keep the peace or its like putting three Siamese fighting fish in the same tank. Two of them fail to thrive and the survivor doesn't feel so good.
I hope that with the help of the neighbors Iraq can patch something together. I may feel a little odd about having toppled a dictator in the name of WMD who doesn't have WMD, in hindsight, and to "restore democracy," which we always say but rarely enforce, and when we do it turns out that they have less democracy than we do, and women are still treated like slaves, and a regressive form of shari'a, Islamic law is imposed, but that's hard cheese for me, isn't it.