Absolutely. Democracy is indeed a work in progress anywhere.After 200+ years of arrogance on the issue of democracy we still manage to bungle it from time to time like elections (ie 2000) and having a Supreme Court that manages to impose its will on the people, not sure if Iraq has a higher court yet, but regardless do you think the Parliament will simply start off with what has become say seperation of church and state in their country...or will it take their folks 150 years to impose it into their law like it did our country. I would love to read the Iraqi Consititution in about ten years. Afterall our Constitution did not have seperation of church and state at the founding of our country regardless of what pundits would have the American people think and it seems to me the big question in Iraq is over which religious group will rule the day, both in practice and in law.
In fairness their government is in its infancy, think us up until 1812, and need to be evaluated as such. We act in this country that successful democracy should just turn on and be embraced and happen overnight and yet to do so is to ignore our very history. Remember our Civil War. If Iraq allows its elected government to fail and it brings civil war then let it be so, oh wait a second we can't let that happen because of all that oil revenue now can we?

You state: "Afterall our Constitution did not have seperation of church and state at the founding of our country regardless of what pundits would have the American people think"  Where might I find information that supports that assertion?

Also, I had a question to you about social conservatism that you never answered.  I'm still interested in the response.

Can Iraq have a successful central government?  Is this choice of federalism a proper solution for them?  Can you have a form of government thrust upon you and it still be successful in the long term?

I would note that Iraq is not a nation in the same sense that we are a nation or Germany is a nation.  Iraq was created out of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire by British and French diplomats, in the same way Yugoslavia was created from the Austro-Hungarian Empire.  These drawn up nations have not shown very much success, Africa providing the most vivid examples of this.  So, why should Iraq, that was here-to-fore held together by a monarchy and then strongmen (much again like Yugoslavia's King Alexander and Josip Tito), be successful?  Or rather can it be?  Or has history provided us several lessons that we have failed to grasp?

Why not adopt Biden's plan to partition the country?

My point was democracy has to evolve. In terms of seperation of church and state I challenge you to find that language anywhere in our US Constitution. You will not. We have Amendment I. (1791)which basically is referred to as our Establishment Clause and our Free Exercise Clause with no mention of seperating government and religion per say, except to promote that no one single religion shall become an "official" religion, much like the Anglican Church in England at the time. "Congress shall make no law respecting an established religion.."
The first mention found coining the phrase "seperation" ws TJ letters of 1802 where he referred to a "wall of seperation", this language was however not written into the Constitution in any manner.
Why I referred to this in terms of Iraq was to question whether they had a judiciary. It has been our Supreme Court in its "interpretation" in such cases as E. vs Board of Ed, L. v. Kurtzman(1971), Sloan v.Lemon (1973) that have shaped the seperation of church and state mindset not the founding documents.
It begs the question what form of religious icons/symbols will the Iraqi government endorse on say currency, at federal buildings, will citizens be able to practice religion in public supported schools and squares, will citizens be able to assemble religously in federally supported buildings, parks, etc. No where in our  constitution did our Founding Fathers forbid those activities, in fact some would argue the Free Exercise Clause endorsed them.
My point was it has taken us 200+ years in evolve as a democracy and it has not solely been our Congress but our Courts as well who have contributed to our cause. Some would argue we are still evolving.

"It begs the question what form of religious icons/symbols will the Iraqi government endorse on say currency, at federal buildings, will citizens be able to practice religion in public supported schools and squares, will citizens be able to assemble religously in federally supported buildings, parks, etc."

The Iraqis are so far from reaching this question that it just seems nonsensical.  A better question would be whether they even have a government, given the disintegration all around and the concentration of power in the militias.  The Iraqis are in an all-out civil war.  Resolution of such niceties will have to await a time when the government, whatever its form, can maintain some semblance of order.  American historical analogies can't just be artificially imposed on this very different culture and conflict.

You are correct in that there is no explicit mention of separation of church and state.  But how does the Establishment Clause not imply separation?  Does everything need to be stated explicitly in order to convey meaning?

Second, were our founding fathers children of the Enlightenment?

Spotter you make the point. What I see is without identifying it, addressing it, and attempting to resolve it as early as possible and declare a form of religious freedom and put it into real practice to begin the process of changing themselves, not some forced change perceived by an outside nation like the US, but to really embrace it themselves they are doomed to failure.
If you underestimate the importance of it all you just have to look to our founding and the issue of the slave debate for example. Because we did not or could not solve the question then, it took a civil war and subsequently a civil rights movement to change the direction of this country almost 150 years post Constitution. You would think that if we are to assist this fledgling democracy we would examine our own political example and do more then simply carrying a big stick on their behalf.