Iraqi Dreams and the Wheaties Box - Who Will Save Iraq(or the US?)

I would like to talk about Iraq in practical terms. That is, what can we do in the context of the given. In times of crisis there are a lot of options, but that is what makes leadership so difficult: the range of choices and, of course, the stakes.

The initial objective was turning Iraq into a model for the region: a democratic, secular and free-market oriented government, sympathetic to U.S. interests, not openly hostile toward Israel, and possibly home to long-term American military bases. An Iraqi civil war would surely be a horrendous humanitarian disaster. However, it may not be contrary to those interests.

There is a real possibility that a civil war would involve other countries. As England and France vied for power in our own civil war, so will the Sunni House of Saud and the Iranian Shiites. This would not be a bad development. The rush to democracy, a hasty democratic process, has brought the Radical Islamists to victory. This is true in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. It makes sense; radical islamists are the best funded and have the most cohesive ideology. In short, we are heading down the wrong track and a civil war may provide an opportunity to reverse these trends. I'm not saying I want it to happen. I'm just saying that I don't think it will set us back from the objectives I stated above.

A Middle Eastern Shiite-Saud conflict is bad but there are also positives like reversing a disturbing trend. A Turkish invasion of Kurdistan would be completely bad. I doubt this would happen overtly, even in the case of an Iraqi Civil War. The Turks are much more likely to continue using more indirect means of assimilation. Methods such as language suppression, abridging freedom of expression, and limiting movement will be the first steps before outright armed aggression. Whether or not these acts will provoke Kurdish rebels is another question.

I think a Civil War is imminent, meaning definietly within the next month and a half where the battle line is clearly drawn between Shiite and Sunni. Ibrahim al-Jaafari has been asked by the Sunni government to withdraw his candidacy for Prime Minister lest "they might try to force his removal by forming an opposition group larger than the Shiites." A political solution is a non-solution. The institutions are untrustworthy and divided along sectarian lines - especially the police forces, but I keep hearing different things on the police. A LT in the Army said to the NYT that "if there is a single indisputable fact it is that the security forces performed as a cohesive unit." However, this contradicts early statements made by the NYT "Shiite police guarding Sunni mosques stood by while the mosques were burned." A unity government is months away.

That leaves the United States to avert civil war. However, President Bush has already said that U.S. troops will not be intervening. This makes sense since we are an occupying force like we are an occupying force in Germany: we have been invited by the independent, sovereign government to position ourselves, and require the permission of the Iraqi government for direct intervention. This is unlikely as well as a risky political move with the upcoming elections.

The future is up to the Iraqi people themselves. But neither side will budge. While it may be outside infiltraters who blew up the Golden Shrine, we must consider that the Sunnis have been running Iraq for a long time and are unwilling to fit into the new Shiite-dominated order . This explains much of the violence now and the violence to come and the need for an excuse to defer the need to fit in.

Who can save Iraq? No one. The religious and political leaders of the country have been sensible enough to explore avenues of peace. A valiant effort. Though, throughout history, no one has really pushed for a civil war. It still came.