That depends on whether there is a single Iraq after we leave next Summer.
Is there a strong enough vision of a united Iraq to even accomplish a Constitution? I have to wonder if the Bush invasion simply created three small middle east states and handed the southern one to the Shia theocrats.
The bombing this morning was two car bombs at Baghdad bus stations and a third at the hospital the casualties of the first two were logically taken to.
Note: no American targets. That is civil war, pure and simple.
The Sunnis did not participate in the last election, they are the primary insurgents, and I bet they will not participate if another election is held. Why should they want to belong to the same nation as the Southern Shias when those Shia dominate? Why would the Sunnis want to join with the Kurds, for that matter?
The Southern Shia want the larger Iraq, so they are using the presence of the U.S. military to create one. But why shouldn't they? They will dominate it. If it doesn't work, they already have a south Iraqi nation as an option.
The Kurds have wanted independence all along, but the Americans who protected them wouldn't go for it. Their desire for autonomy is already a major sticking point in the negotiations towards creating a national constitution. With no American presence, why should they belong to a unified Iraq?
When Bush bugs out of Iraq next Summer, as he will, the result is going to be an intensification of the civil war, followed by the Iranians assisting the Southern Shia to stabilize Southern Iraq, and then the creation of three nations.
The Kurds and Sunnis may wind up fighting over the northern oil fields.
Democracy in Iraq? Only if there is some kind of miracle in the next 12 months. I wouldn't count on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment