There is a more fundamental question hidden beneath this, and that is the question of defining “Iraq”. What is “Iraq” is more fundamental than whether or not Iraq has “democracy”.
Iraq is not a nation in the organic sense of people with common languages, heritage, or purpose. It was and remained an artificial creation, with arbitrarily defined borders and an imposed governance. That Iraq has continued to exist the last years has more to do with Saddam than anything else. Saddam defined Iraq by his iron Stalinist rule, a Kurd was Iraqi because Saddam said so. Period.
Our policy in Iraq is founded upon this illussion of a nation, Iraq. We proceeded under the fantasy that we would pop out Saddam, install Chalabi, sweep up the roses strewn in our path, and leave. We are committed to a stable and unified Iraq, a “federal” Iraq, if you will. And of course a “democratic” Iraq, with an elected and legitimate government, something the Iraqi people have no experience with, ever.
There are several glaringly obvious problems with that:
First, the Kurds. They do not want to be Iraqi, they want to be Kurdish. They believe, with very good reason, that they are owed some cooperation and consideration. That want a Kurdistan. They want the oil revenues of that Kurdistan to be entirely under Kurdish control, and to Kurdish benefit. Their case is reasonable and sympathetic. As well, they will demand a right to self-defense, hence, to spend oil revenue on arms. I doubt they are at all interested in sharing with thier comparatively resource-poor Sunni “brethren”, which would necessarily be the result of a “federal” Iraq. (Perhaps they are like American conservatives, deeply oppossed to government imposed income redistribution…but I digress)
Turkey, our NATO ally, regards this as a nightmare scenario, certain to encourage Kurdish seperatism in Turkey and equally certain that some of that money and arms will flow into seperatist hands. I suspect they are probably right.
The Kurds have no reason to push right now. They can simply bide their time until all foreign troops are withdrawn and hand the impotent Iraqi "federal"s a fait accompli: they are already armed, and organized and motivated. A “federal” Iraq could not militarily enforce its mandate without outside assistance. From whom? Us? The U.N.? Turkey? All highly unlikely. Therefore it follows that, in all probability, the “federal” Iraq will be stillborn, at least as far as the Kurds are concerned.
The Shia seem to like the idea of a “federal” Iraq well enough, as would be natural since they must, by sheer weight of numbers, dominate any remotely democratic government. Viewed in light of entirely rational realpolitik, the Shia interest is best served by complete compliance with thier American occupiers, as long as that compliance will lead to a government dominated by them which any remotely democratic government must be. They have a case. Of course, they want immediate direct elections, they would certainly win. But how do we prevent an Islamic state if that is what the majority of "Iraqi"s want?
Naturally, this is the last thing the Sunni can want. They are cringing in anticipation of Shia payback, as well they might. If the Kurds and Shia withdraw from them and leave them only that part where they numericly dominate, they will instantly devolve to third-world status. They will expect and demand massive US assistance. And US protection. Under the circumstances, how could we say “No”?
The hand-over will occur, but on some level, it will be ceremonial and inane.
As Americans, we haven’t yet come to grips with the reality of democracy in Iraq, we operate under the fantasy that Iraq will transform instanter into a secure and quiet nation of small shopkeepers and Starbuck franchisees, with vigorous but non-threatening politics. A Parliament where the Kurds sometimes align with the Sunni to vote down a Shia highway beautification project, but all bitterness and rancor is rhetorical. It is a fantasy, a dream, a fervid delusion.
The terrible truth, I think, is this: if we give the Iraqi people direct, participatory democracy at once we will destroy “Iraq” as a federal state, a goal to which we remain committed. This is the horns of the dilemma. We cannot do what we have promised to do, we must not honor our obligations. Sharing the blame for this situation is our only hope.
If getting UN help and legitimacy requires GeeDubya to publicly fellate Kofi Annan in Macy’s window at high noon, he should do so. At once. Its entirely possible that even with the complete and sincere cooperation of the UN, the trajectory of the shit will still intersect the locus of the fan.
But the process will simply have to be slowed until all the parties involved can come to some grumpy but liveable accomodation. Frankly, I think this will ultimately prove to be what I’ve outlined: Kurdistan, Shiraq, and thier unlucky cousins sandwhiched perilously between them, swelling with disenfranchised refugees from all directions.
May Allah be merciful.