It might be that things will progress quickly and people will stop dying there needlessly, but history is against it.
The US toppling a Middle Eastern dictator who ruled without question and without the support of his people is unprecedented, so I'm not sure what history you are refering to. The vast majority of Iraqis are happy to be rid of Saddam. The similar analogies in recent history are Poland overthrowing oppressive communist leadership, the Baltics kicking our oppressive Russian leadership, Spain removing Franco, etc. Perhaps the best might be the US removing Noreiga from power in Panama. In each situation, peace came fairly quickly.
It looks to be one of those situations where a long term military presence, on the order of generations, will be required to keep stability. That has not long term win scenarios, it is just a struggle to maintain the status quo.
Absolutely, as is true in EVERY country on the planet. It will be an Iraqi military, policing Iraqi civilians.
I once thought that some sort of victory was achievable in Iraq, I don't think that any more.
With the removal of Saddam's regime, there is no losing scenario as long as the coalition departs fairly soon. The Iraqis will be left to govern themselves as best as possible, and as soon as the occupation forces depart (or at least are significantly reduced), all you have is an internal guerilla war. If the guerillas win, they will likely be invaded and destroyed. If the Iraqi government wins, voila, peaceful democratic Iraq.
The ONLY losing path is to keep coalition forces there playing the "Iraqi police" role. |
