You don't hear it as much anymore but there used to be a lot of comparison of the U.S. in Iraq to when we were in Vietnam. I never thought that was a good comparison.
But what I do think is a good comparison is Ireland. Put aside the Kurdish north which has its act together and is basically running as an autonomous country. In the rest of Iraq you have two sects of the same religion who would rather fight than live together peaceably.
The British have been in Ireland for over 800 years I think. And still they have walls in towns dividing the protestant and catholic parts of the towns. And British troops are stationed throughout Northern Ireland to try and get both sides to not kill each other.
And after 800 years, it's still a problem. The IRA is inactive right now (aside from the occasional bank robbery) but the walls and troops are still needed. If both groups would rather fight, then they will fight.
I think this is what we have in Iraq. It's not that if the U.S. had sufficient troops or if there was security and an improving infrastructure, that the terrorism would stop. And it's not that if both sides got enough jobs and money and power that the insurgency would stop.
While many Iraqis almost certainly want peace, enough from each power block would rather fight than compromise. And if that is the case, there is nothing anyone can do to bring about peace. We can stay in Iraq for the next 800 years to keep a lid on the violence. But that also allows each group to continue fighting because they know that with the U.S. there, while they may not win, neither will they be vanquished.
Maybe there are other examples somewhere. But the only examples I know of where both groups are very strong (ie we're not talking a small group challenging the controlling government), where the civil war is ended, is cases like the U.S. Civil War where one side devastated the other side both militarily and economically. In the U.S. Civil War the Union destroyed the Confederacy not just on the battlefield but with Sherman's march through the South, it also destroyed the economy.
Under our present course what the next 800 plus years presents is a continuing low-level conflict. And it's not just Sunni vs Shia. In Basra once it was turned over to the Shia, the various Shia power blocks began fighting among themselves.
If this is true, and I think it is, it means there is no way to get to a functioning democracy. It's not a matter of compromising or finding enough money and power for each group. Instead, no matter what each has, they will still choose to fight rather than live together.
And that means this country has to decide if we are willing to stay in Iraq for hundreds of years. And if not, we need to leave now. And yes it will be worse there if we leave. But it's not going to get better if we stay.
Agree? Disagree? Please comment - I would like to get other viewpoints on this.
trackbacks: DailyKOS, Mudville Gazette
