By the same logic, why should not Muslim governments decide what kind of regime the US ought to have? What if Muslim countries proposed that it would suit them fine to have the US divided into North and South. Are Iraqis debating whether the US should have a certain type of regime? The assumption that the US reserves the right to determine regimes around the world is an integral part of Pax Americana legacy and demonstrates that there is a total absence of democratic thinking and a double-standard when treating European countries versus Muslim and/or Third World. Would the US dare consider deciding what kind of regime Belgium must have, whether it ought to be divided or not, or the recent debate about the independence of Scotland? Solutions for Iraq and for the entire Middle East regarding what type of institutions it wishes is a matter that rests entirely in the hands of its people, just as the US insisted when the USSR invaded Afghanistan in order to sustain in power a pro-Soviet regime in the 1980s. The real issue is the goal of the US to determine the balance of power in the Middle East and exploit its resources, and toward that goal it proposes policies accordingly.
People need to remember several things about the US invasion of Iraq.
1. The lies on which the US invaded the country, namely, that it a) had weapons of mass destruction, and b) that there was a link to al-Qaeda, when it was well known that the al-Qaeda organization was made up primarily of Saudis with which the Bush family as well as a number of well-connected Republicans had multi-billion dollar interests. The real reasons were the oil reserves, the US obsession to counterbalance Iran, and strengthen the defense industry in which Republicans and Democrats had personal financial interests. It is interesting to note, that the US defense and intelligent budgets skyrocketed as a result of this war combined with Afghanistan, while the US economy continued losing ground to China.
3. US tax payers paid for a war in order to advance the profits of Republican party-linked corporations in which Bush, Cheney, Baker, Rumsfeld and others were connected, corporations such as the Carlyle Group and Halliburton that defrauded the US government of millions of dollars in contract work in Iraq. This is the same Halliburton against which Nigeria filed corruption charges against Cheney as CEO, and the same company that was partly responsible for the Deep Horizon oil disaster in autumn 2010.
4. Iraq was not among the top 20 most corrupt countries in the world before the US invasion, but it advanced to the number #2 spot during the occupation! The US reduced the country into a concentration camp where corruption was the way of doing business. Focused only on oil and counterbalancing Iran, the US was unable to do anything with Iraq other than leave a devastated country that its people must rebuild.
5. The issue of federalism and/or breaking up Iraq was one that concerned American politicians, think tanks, journalists, and academics after the US invaded. The question is why? While the Kurdish population has historically wanted autonomy, the US has never been interested in this minority group, otherwise it would demand that Turkey also submit to some type of federalist system. The goal is to keep Iraq weak and dependent on the US so that it can exploit its oil and counterbalance Iran, while also determining the regional balance of power.
Iraq and Afghanistan represent the twilight of Pax Americana, the last vestiges of an imperial democracy operating on a foreign policy based on a predominantly Protestant missionary pretext about the White Anglo-Saxon Christians 'saving' the weaker dark-skinned non-Christian brethren whose land just happens to have natural resources that the West needs, and it just happens to be located in a place of strategic interest. From the colonial ventures of Portugal five hundred years ago to the present, the world has seen the blatant hypocrisy of the Caucasian West toward the non-white East and South. Is it not time to at least be honest about imperialism and stop with the pretenses of freedom and democracy, of humanitarian concern for the Muslim and/or potential threat that the Muslim poses to the West that has defense capabilities sufficient to destroy the planet many times over?