Iraq is nearly over. BTW we won.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Redux

Interesting article in the Wash Post Today:
"The war in Iraq isn't over. The main events may not even have happened yet".

Slowly we are seeing indications that we have no idea what will happen once we leave. We know violence diminished when various insurgent groups were ordered to stand down. They still have weapons - and plenty of time to rebuild stockpiles. Do they still have the hatred of their countrymen? "Mission Accomplished" was always a civil war. Within the past year, cities that were once safe have now become 'unstable'. From the NY Times of 23 Jun 2009:

Falluja Rumblings Threaten to Disrupt Withdrawal Script
Then a series of troubling attacks began cropping up this year. One in particular, at the end of May, seemed to drive home the possibility that things were changing for the worse. On a heavily patrolled military road between a Marine camp and the wastewater plant, a huge buried bomb tore through an armored American convoy, killing three prominent reconstruction officials and striking at hopes that the way was completely clear for peacetime projects.

With the June 30 withdrawal deadline for American combat troops from Iraqi cities and towns drawing near, that attack and others like it are particularly ominous for officials who see Falluja as a test case for the rest of the country. Security here is becoming a solely Iraqi operation, and while the United States military says the number of attacks remains encouragingly low, there are signs that Falluja could again plunge into violence.

We are out because our leadership has grasped reality. It is their country to build or destroy. They had a year to decide what kind of country they want - now that we had enabled so much violence.

We broke it. We owned it. Now we leave it with our legacy. Nobody can predict that legacy with certainty.

[classicman]

"With only a few days of 2008 remaining, the year so far has seen another 8,315-9,028 civilian deaths added to the IBC database. This compares to 25,774-27,599 deaths reported in 2006, and 22,671-24,295 in 2007. This is a substantial drop on the preceding two years: on a per-day rate, it represents a reduction from 76 per day (2006) and 67 per day (2007) to 25 per day in 2008.

Iraq's elections: a win for Prime Minister Maliki and the US
Iraq's January 31 provincial elections were another important milestone on Iraq's long and difficult journey toward becoming a stable democracy.

According to preliminary results, the big electoral winner was Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law coalition. While 10 per cent of the votes must still be counted, it is apparent that the relatively peaceful atmosphere on Election Day was a triumph for US policy and a vindication of the Bush Administration's surge strategy.

But it remains to be seen whether all the contending factions will peacefully accept the provincial election results and, more importantly, the results of national elections slated for December. The Obama Administration must be careful to maintain adequate US troops in Iraq to safeguard the prospects for continued political progress.

US dominance over Iraq has ended: Maliki

BAGHDAD (AFP) — Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Tuesday that the era of US dominance in Iraq was over, in a broadside to Washington almost six years after the invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein.

The Shiite premier, boosted by the strong showing of his allies in provincial elections, said Iraq was now taking charge of its own destiny and was making good progress towards rebuilding the war-torn country.

His remarks were a pointed rebuke to US Vice President Joe Biden, who last week said Washington would have to be "more aggressive" in pushing Baghdad towards faster political reform.

"The time for putting pressure on Iraq is over," Maliki told reporters when asked about Biden's comments.

"The Iraqi government knows what are its responsibilities. We are carrying out reform and we are in the last step of the reconciliation."

Biden said the January 31 provincial elections -- in which Maliki's allies triumphed -- had shown that progress was being made, but more needed to be done as Iraq's leaders had not "gotten their political arrangements together yet."

The new US administration of President Barack Obama would have to be "much more aggressive... forcing them to deal with those issues," Biden said.

But Maliki insisted: "If there are demands for political reforms, it is up to the government, the Iraqi parliament and political forces.

"It was we who took the initiative for national reconciliation, and we have stated that without national reconciliation there will be no security in the country."

Maliki's remarks were a strong signal ahead of a parliamentary election due to be held in about a year that he is unwilling to allow the United States to dictate how Iraq should rebuild and consolidate its fledgling democracy.

[sugarpop]

I just hope this doesn't cause us to stay longer. As it is, I don't trust that we will be leaving completely anyway, and I think we should.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

From reading T.P.M. Barnett's latest book, Great Powers: America and the World After Bush, I don't think we should. He doesn't think we can or should. Take a read of his stuff. He's also got a blog for the week-to-week.

[classicman]

where's the link?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

It isn't a link. I just underlined the title. Still like $32.00 at Borders or Barnes & Noble. Here's the blog, though.

Thomas P.M. Barnett

[classicman]

thanks for the blog link

[sugarpop]

Are you saying you don't think we should stay either? sorry, I'm just a little confused.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

I said back in '03 or '04 around here that the final victory in Iraq would not be ours, but necessarily must be the Iraqis'. What we should do is to set up the conditions for a victory by the globalizer Iraqis, the democratic Iraqis who got themselves a bellyful of undemocracy under Saddam and his ilk and are now ready to try something else, and something better: a more democratic social order. We should set it up so this victory is in the end inevitable -- at least so far as that may be possible. The thing that makes social science so much less than a science, and social engineering so much less than engineering, is that the fundamental unit of social science is not a molecule, but a self-willed organism. Organisms actively seek their own advantage, and this kind of behavior is what fuzzes up the results in social science. It reduces a socalled science to an art, and we're stuck with that.

And back then, I expected that the timing of our eventual and always-expected departure would be controversial: some would argue too late, others would say too early, more work is needed yet, and almost no one would claim in print (at the time) that it was timed about right.

This Barnett guy seems to offer some pretty cagey ideas for how to pursue this kind of strategy not merely in Araby, but globally -- shrinking the Non-Integrating Gap, as he puts it, nation by nation, increment by increment, developmental stage by developmental stage -- these stages being essentially economic ones, the most earthshaking of which is the rise of a numerous middle class, in places that never had them before. Education of women is another essential, and often catalytic to the required social growth. It is also the one thing our antiglobalist foes oppose most bitterly -- and locally and temporarily, with greatest success.

[sugarpop]

ahhhh, I see. Thanks UG for that explanation. I actually think I agree with you. (quick! call the press!)

The one comment I will make, is there are certain people who will ALWAYS argue it's too soon, more work is needed, even if it's 20 years later.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

ahhhh, I see. Thanks UG for that explanation. I actually think I agree with you. (quick! call the press!)

The one comment I will make, is there are certain people who will ALWAYS argue it's too soon, more work is needed, even if it's 20 years later.

Yeah. Goes without saying. Maybe not without linking to here, but without saying...

[ZenGum]

This moment is like when the 16 year old son borrows the car for the first time.

You've taught him to drive, lectured him on safety, shown him car crashes, taken him to the ICU to talk with the quadraplegics; now, you hear the rumble of the exhaust down the driveway...
Will he drive sensibly and carefully like you told him? Will he turn into a hoon and wreck everything? Will some idiot smash into him despite everything you have done?

My guess is that the next few months - maybe even a year or so - will stay relatively quiet, as more and more foreign troops slowly leave. But I also guess there are trouble makers just biding their time, and when they judge that enough foreign troops have left, they will start to stir up shit. Mosque bombings, street killings, etc.
Whether that remains under control or descends into civil war and ends up like Lebannon is the question. It depends on so many things - almost all of them to do with the Iraqi people and whether they really support their government, enough to serve in its armies; or whether they become disenchanted with the rulers and apathetically allow extremists to screw things up.

I am not very hopeful. Iraq isn't a "natural state" - three big groups with different ethnicities, religions, and languages, and a history of bad behaviour towards each other. And some juicy oil deposits to keep things interesting. Add in meddling neighbours, and I think the odds are moderately against them. On the plus side, they have got a glimpse of life under religious whackos, and they didn't like it. Most of them will surely understand what civil war will mean for them, I hope.

Wait and see.

[sugarpop]

I think ultimately it might have been better to divide it up into 3 states for the 3 factions.

[ZenGum]

I have thought of that, but Bagdad is a huge multi-ethinc mix. It wont divide neatly. Splitting the country would almost certainly lead to awful bloodshed in Bagdad. Also, the oil is not distibuted evenly - some groups wont want to split.

It may end up Balkanising, but the process will be very ugly. But, that may in the long run be the only viable stable solution.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

I have thought of that, but Bagdad is a huge multi-ethinc mix. It wont divide neatly. Splitting the country would almost certainly lead to awful bloodshed in Bagdad. Also, the oil is not distibuted evenly - some groups wont want to split.

It may end up Balkanising, but the process will be very ugly. But, that may in the long run be the only viable stable solution.

The obvious solution is a secular dictatorship. No matter how bad Saddam was, Iraq was more or less stable under it, so that has to be remembered. Though, that obviously is not a preferable solution.