The
Sunday LA Times reports that many senior military and civilian officials have
stopped drinking the Kool-Aid begun to recognize that the idea of defeating the Iraqi insurgency by implanting democracy might not work:
Senior U.S. officials have begun to question a key presumption of American strategy in Iraq: that establishing democracy there can erode and ultimately eradicate the insurgency gripping the country.
Reality is beginning to set in. The collapse of the myth that democracy is the cure for insurgency could bring about the final fall of the Bush Administration's Iraq policy.
The expectation that political progress would bring stability has been fundamental to the Bush administration's approach to rebuilding Iraq, as well as a central theme of White House rhetoric to convince the American public that its policy in Iraq remains on course.
But within the last two months, U.S. analysts with access to classified intelligence have started to challenge this precept, noting a "significant and disturbing disconnect" between apparent advances on the political front and efforts to reduce insurgent attacks.
Now, with Saturday's constitutional referendum appearing more likely to divide than unify the country, some within the administration have concluded that the quest for democracy in Iraq, at least in its current form, could actually strengthen the insurgency.
The commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Army Gen. George W. Casey, has acknowledged that such a scenario is possible, while officials elsewhere in the administration, all of whom declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject, say they share similar concerns about the referendum.
* * * * *
A growing number of experts outside the administration and in Iraq agree with such assessments.
"If the constitution passes in a non-amicable way, the violence will increase," said Ali Dabagh, a member of Iraq's transitional National Assembly who is believed to be close to Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari.
The administration believes that the all of Iraq's major ethnic groups will buy into the new constitution, but that will probably not be the case.
Sunnis, largely excluded from this summer's crucial negotiations on the constitution, see the document as rigged against their interests. They fear, for example, that blunt language outlawing Hussein's Sunni-dominated Baath Party could be used to block them from jobs in the public sector. The draft also appears to open the door to a loosely federated system that could deprive Sunni Arab regions of the benefits of the country's huge oil reserves.
Not only is the fundamental administration policy flawed, but so is the process by which it is being implemented. Particularly damning is this quote:
"We're short of time -- it's the fault of the Americans," Kurdish politician Mahmoud Othman said. "They are always insisting on short deadlines.
It's as if they're [making] hamburgers and fast food."
Othman added: "If we'd had more time, it would have been possible to get Sunni participation. When Oct. 15 comes, many won't even have seen the constitution."
Read the whole article. It is well worth it.
Since the invasion, we have put off the final day of reckoning by a series of intermediate steps: establishing an interim council, electing a provisional government, etc. But despite the smoldering (yet deadly) insurgency, an outright explosion has not yet taken place because the various factions have been waiting to see how the new power structure finally shakes out.
As long as the measures were "interim" and "provisional," the losing factions could hope that things would change. But the closer we get to a "final" settlement, the more the losers will see themselves as losing, and the greater the danger of an all-out civil war. We are rapidly approaching that point.
Bottom line: Iraq is screwed, and so, unfortunately, are we.