The future of Iraq

Varying views, from very optimistic to very pessimistic:

What We've Gained In 3 Years in Iraq
...
The terrorists seem to recognize that they are losing in Iraq. I [Donald Rumsfeld] believe that history will show that to be the case...

...But despite the many acts of violence and provocation, the vast majority of Iraqis have shown that they want their country to remain whole and free of ethnic conflict...

Another significant transformation has been in the size, capability and responsibility of Iraqi security forces...

What we need to understand is that the vast majority of the Iraqi people want the coalition to succeed. They want better futures for themselves and their families. They do not want the extremists to win. And they are risking their lives every day to secure their country...

Diminishing the U.S. Footprint
...
...U.S. forces will stay in Iraq beyond 2006 to fight al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists who are using Iraq as a platform for terrorism. Iraqi units -- operating with U.S. logistical assistance from remote locations and embedded command help -- are to be given primary responsibility for containing the domestic insurgency...

...on its face, that strategy is a coherent way of reducing the foreign occupation footprint that fuels much of the conflict in Iraq. It realistically scales down what Iraqi units can be expected to accomplish: a long-term containment of terrorist attacks to a level that does not destroy the country's fraying ethnic and sectarian balances, rather than a quick final victory over the rebels...

Dreams turned to dust: The war rages on, but the administration's goal of exporting democracy has already failed
...
At best, when all is said and done, we may scrape by with a weak federal Iraq whose national institutions will be controlled by the Shiite religious parties, but in which Kurdistan will only nominally remain part of the country (this, in fact, has happened already). At the same time, a protracted home-grown insurgency verging on civil war will continue in the so-called Sunni Triangle and in Baghdad.

Kurdish autonomy and Sunni rage are already known quantities, and anyone wanting to see just how illiberal the Shiite areas of Iraq are likely to become in what, again, is the best-case scenario need only travel to the southern city of Basra. There, you quickly realize that for all the vaunted (and real) differences between Iraqi Shiism and Iranian Shiism, where women's rights, civil law, religious toleration and the like are concerned, little separates their respective visions about how society should look.

But that's the best case. All the other realistic scenarios are worse...

Divided, Iraq might just have a chance
...
Put simply, from the perspective of the UK and US, none of the options available can be considered to be good. We have got to the point where the country is on the verge of collapse, and the only options left are unsavoury and problematic. What was unthinkable three years ago - a partitioned or rigidly federal state - might now be the only hope.

Update: A leader in the Daily Telegraph that reflects my own inability to reach a clear judgement:
...
...those who supported the war want to leave behind an orderly country, and so are reluctant to disengage until the current discontents have been quelled. Those who opposed it, on the other hand, are determined to say, "I told you so"...

...Lacking ethnic [and religious] homogeneity - and unable, accordingly, to call on a sense of shared civic patriotism - Iraq is not a naturally stable country. Saddam, like the strongmen who had preceded him, was as much a symptom as a cause of what was wrong in his homeland. Until the constituent peoples of Iraq feel secure in their autonomy, the agitation will continue...

It was assumed that efforts should be made to hold Yugoslavia and the USSR together. After trying to ignore reality, for a greater or lesser time, the illusions behind those efforts were abandoned.

Would a managed partition of Iraq be worse than continuing unrest that might lead to a regional war--or wars--involving, in one fashion or another, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan and Saudia Arabia? And Israel? ¿Quién sabe?

Upperdate: Clueless in Iraq (h/t to Aldous Huxley) or, remember when Lawrence liberated Damascus?

And some interesting poll results that might encourage optimism--except for the Sunnis:

...
IRAQIS POLLED

Opinions in Iraq divide largely along sectarian lines, as the minority Sunnis that controlled Iraq under Saddam Hussein now find themselves dominated by the majority Shiites.

47% approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces in Iraq

Percentage breakdown

Kurd - 16%

Shiite - 41%

Sunni - 88%

Other - 43%

64% think the country is headed in the right direction

Percentage breakdown

Kurd - 76%

Shiite - 84%

Sunni - 6%

Other - 60%

13% think it's no longer necessary to have U.S.- led forces in the country

Percentage breakdown

Kurd - 4%

Shiite - 8%

Sunni - 34%

Other - 14%

77% think that all of the hardships suffered have been worth it to overthrow Saddam Hussein

Percentage breakdown

Kurd - 91%

Shiite - 98%

Sunni - 13%

Other - 64%

1,150 Iraqis polled Jan. 2-5, 2006

SOURCE: WORLDPUBLICOPINION.ORG...

Posted by markc at March 19, 2006 11:49 AM | TrackBack