Kaplan essentially covers it, but he refrains from stating the obvious - Bushco wants to break up Iraq:
President George W. Bush likes to invoke the difficulties our own Founding Fathers endured in crafting a constitution. The analogy between Philadelphia 1787 and Baghdad 2005 is absurd on several counts (click here for details), but one comparison can be legitimately (if unpleasantly) drawn. A key breakthrough in Philadelphia was the Connecticut Compromise, which gave each state two senators, thus preserving the power of small states. But imagine there had never been this compromise. The constitution needed ratification by just nine of the 13 states in order to become the law of the land. Nine states might have signed on even without the compromise—but the union would not have lasted very long. The same is true of Iraq's constitution: Enough provinces may sign on—but that probably won't be enough to build a durable Iraqi nation.
Why does Buscho want to break up Iraq? I don't know for sure - but I suppose that small, weak states are much preferable to confront than large, strong states, no?