I recently bumped Peter Galbraith's New York Review of Books article, "Iraq: The Way To Go." The NYRB had the bright idea of fielding readers' questions about the piece and forwarding them to Galbraith for his response. You can read the exchange right here. From Galbraith's replies:

I have never advocated that the US divide Iraq into three parts. Ibelieve Iraq has already partitioned itself and that the US should getout of the fruitless business of trying to put it back together.Kurdistan is already a separate entity under Iraq's Constitution. In myview, it would be a better outcome to have Sunni and Shiite Regions aspart of a tripartite partition, but I don't believe the US can imposesuch a solution. Right now, it seems more likely that the Sunnis andShiites will fight their civil war for control of Arab Iraq to thebitter end, which certainly means a Shiite victory. But, for thereasons outlined in my article, I believe we should leave troops inKurdistan regardless of what happens in Arab Iraq.

The differences between what I propose and the Biden Plan arerelatively few. He believes it is possible to have more centralinstitutions than I think are possible and he holds out hope that thedivision of Iraq would, like Bosnia, ultimately lead to a sustainablestate. I don't think Iraq can be saved as a state, nor do I think itshould be. But, both our plans have one thing in common. They are basedon the realities of Iraq.

(...)

My advice to the next President is quite simple: Focus US efforts inIraq on the achievable. A war fought to achieve a democratic, unifiedand reasonably stable Iraq (how Bush defines the current mission)cannot be won because the goal is unattainable for the reasons Ioutline in my article. I would urge the next President to focus on whatis achievable: preserving Kurdistan's aspiring democracy, disruptingal-Qaeda, and preventing Iran from dominating all of Iraq.