The United States has supported Iraq in an effort to set up a federal system ever since its military occupation of the country over two and a half years ago. But as the goal of a federal system is about to reach, Washington hesitates and feels uncertain whether a unified Iraq with an authority, or a "divided" Iraq under federalism is preferable and good for America?

In an interview with Fox TV on Oct. 17, President George W. Bush said he is opposed to the division of Iraq into the regions of Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis because, as he noted, the three regions will give rise to a situation of contentions between the Sunni people associated with their Sunni militants on one hand and Shiite insurgents on the other hand, and Kurds will also create problems for Turkey and Syria.

Apparently, President Bush's open opposition to the "division of Iraq into three" is related closely to a turmoil resultant from massacres or murders among different religious sects in the country. At least 63 people have lost their lives from murders of different religious sects. And people unanimously deem that the bloody weekend had something to do with the "regional organic law", or the "federal act" passed by the Iraqi parliament, which was enacted in line with the relevant specifications of the Iraqi constitution.

In the "permanent constitution" adopted by the referendum last year, the 113th article of its fifth chapter reads: The constitution, from the date of its validity, will first ratify the establishment of a region under the Iraqi federal system, which is composed of Kurdistan and the existing institutions of power, and the 114th article notes that the work will begin drafting a law on implementation details concerning the respective regions in the six months following the first session of parliament, and the 115th article explicitly specifies that any one or more provinces are entitled to form a region. These relevant specifications prop up a basic framework for the Iraqi federal system.

At the moment the drafting of the constitution started, Sunnis began opposing the constitution which represented the stances of Kurds and Shiites but the disputed constitution was eventually approved since Sunnis did not win two-thirds of the votes in three provinces during the referendum. The United States also supported the approval of the constitution, which it took as a key link for building the "democratic" model of Iraq.

Parties of Kurds and Shiites have been in active preparations to enact the federal act since the inception of the new Iraqi parliament earlier this year. When the act was put to vote on Oct. 11, various Sunni parties jointly resisted it, with even drastic rifts surfacing inside the (Shiite) United Iraqi Alliance. And the Al-Sadr (Moqtada al-Sadr) group, among other opposition forces, also rejected the voting. With only 140 members of parliament partaking in the voting, the act was eventually adopted by a simple majority with merely a narrow margin.

If the federal act turns valid in 18 months, nine Shiite provinces in the south will also form a region with a high-degree of autonomy. With the assumption for "one divided into three" being effected, the "unity" of Iraq will be only symbolic. And the next 18 months, nevertheless, will possibly witness a period of sustained violence and bloodshed in view of Sunnis' present acute opposition to the act.

To date, the United States has already lost the precious lives of more than 2,780 soldiers in Iraq, which has also cost it 300 billion US dollars of military spending. If the Iraqi "civil war" goes on incessantly, the U.S. has to retain a powerful military force in Iraq, which is not impossible to become another "Vietnam".

Editor: Yan