I'm writing soon after the invasion of Iraq began. I'm scheduled to travel

before this appears. What can I say that's neither trite nor obsolete, but

surely true?

First, few adults live here by accident or assignment. We have consciously,

deliberately elected to live in the Northern Rockies. The reasons carry a

common theme; attraction to our natural, social, and cultural environment.

Folks do not live here to maximize income. For most of us, other factors --

ecology viewed broadly -- trump money.

As citizens, we of course confront universal problems of education, welfare,

health, and crime. The issues that set us apart from urban Americans are

topics such as wildlife, wetlands, wilderness, and water. They motivate our

passion and involvement in public policy debates and personal discussions.

Our tastes and knowledge base are different from those of urbanites. Most

Americans can't distinguish the Forest Service from the Park Service and

very few can identify the BLM or define acre-feet or AUMs. These names and

terms are common in the vocabulary of my Montana friends. They identify the

furniture and fixtures of our world.

But what happens when war intrudes? Aside from its relevance to America's

war effort, this stuff, once central to our lives, is ignored or consciously

discounted. Environmental concerns become secondary. Suddenly our daily

thoughts and concerns become focused on larger, more immediate issues.

Saddam will surely fall. But then what? Of course we'll win the war but

winning the peace is much less certain. Here's why:

The bureaucrats who will no doubt be called to administer a post-war Iraq

crave stable, well-defined systems. But the second half of the twentieth

century was a period of devolution and fragmentation along ethnic, cultural,

and religious fault lines. U.N. membership went from 60 in 1952 (51 at

founding in 1945) to 191 in 2002. Much of this increase came from the

dissolution of multi-ethnic and multi-religious nations.

This process was quite rational, though often bloody and destructive.

People, perhaps especially illiterate peasants, recognize that the default

activity of government is to be an engine that systematically rewards the

wealthy and corrupt. The efficiency of that engine varies greatly but its

propensity doesn't, i.e., it takes from the weak and gives to the strong.

Unless a nation is blessed with a well-functioning constitution that

protects liberty through secure property rights and the rule of law, groups

identified by race, religion, ethnicity, or kinship will use the coercive

apparatus of the state against others. No Third World nations have these

progress-fostering qualities.

Iraq is a contrived, constructed nation of warring parties -- Kurds in the

north, Shiites in the south, and Sunnis in the middle. The U.S. will attempt

reconstruction of a nation that can't function as a democracy or a

productive economy. It will be like running a decrepit prison filled with

Crips, Bloods, and the Aryan Brotherhood.

If we are to win the peace, in Iraq and other battles that surely will

follow, we much recognize that many nations have centrifugal forces tearing

them apart. Compare the fates of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia after the

fall of the Berlin wall.

In Czechoslovakia, enlightened rulers who valued liberty were able to

negotiate its peaceful separation into the Czech Republic and the Slovak

Republic in 1993. Both countries have done relatively well since their

breakup. On the other hand, Slobodan Milosevic and his thugs tried

desperately to maintain their tyranny over Yugoslavia's disparate groups of

Christians, Muslims, and Orthodox Christians. But even violent oppression

and ethnic cleansing failed to keep the country intact.

Let's not squander our resources and good will in futile efforts to hold

contrived, inharmonious countries together.

The Shah always falls. If we dealt with separate, more homogenous entities,

we might foster democracy, literacy, the rule of law, and prosperity. After

these values are achieved, the components might reunite in a federated

nation modeled after the EU, Canada, or the U.S.

Unfortunately, bureaucrats from established nations demonstrate a strong

preference for the maintenance of existing "sovereign" nations, however

sorry their performance.

Many countries are artifacts of colonial dominance. Identity groups with

generations of hate were lumped into contentious "nations." They and we pay

for these colonial policies motivated by avarice and transitory convenience.