I think I agree with Atrios that the Iraq parliament passing a law that allows the breakup of the country is not necessarily a good thing, at least in the short run. I say "I think", because I'm really quite ambivalent on the issue.

On the one hand (and as Atrios points out), dividing the country will inevitably be uneven (think oil) causing more divisivenss. It will firm up the borders of the conflict and likely lead to more violence.

But on the other hand, I think that a violent, messy Iraq is the future no matter what anyone does. With the hardened positions involved, it may simply take an exhausting and debilitating civil war to continue indefinately before all sides are sufficiently worn down to be willing to negotiate in good faith. Take a look at the American Civil War with it's hardened positions that only broke down after a long, bloody and disasterous tearing apart of the countryside. And though currently peaceful, those hardened positions still resonate through the body politic.

It may not be politically correct to say, but Iraq is simply going to have to be a disaster with perhaps millions killed before it's possible for it to be a success. And the regional consequences, while possibly dire for the U.S., are baked into the cake already. For me, the only question is, how many Americans are going to be caught in the middle, dying, while merely forestalling the inevitable?