Throughout the first quarter of 2003, into the early weeks after Saddam Hussein's fall, the question of Iraq's polity remained uncertain and hotly debated. Many who were distrustful of the Bush administration, in their infinite paranoia of elected, Western governments, assumed that a dictator would be plucked from Ba'athist remnants and set to watch over the country as oil deposits were bled dry. Among the sober, even the oxymoron of a pro-democratic strongman was seriously considered and suggested, Daniel Pipes and Stanley Kurtz included. Iraqis, of all backgrounds and religions, in agreement on self-government - even tentative, transitory documents? Fodder for daydreamers. Never!

How very wrong, I'm happy to say, they all were. Even in the face of religious culture impressing itself ever-so-slightly into law, and the utterly selfish boycott held by some Shiite delegates just moments before the highly publicized signing ceremony for Iraq's interim constitution, Iraqis continue to work civilly for the good of a free country. Anyone who has a working knowledge of The Federalist Papers among other historical records of America's infant government knows that more than a few hammers will shatter on the constitutional anvil.

Frustrating? Yes. I'm eager to see some of the Iraqi Governing Council's pariahs told just where to get off, or at least where their self-interest becomes conceit, a small-mindedness dangerous to all Iraqis. Hopeless? No - never.