I don't think so. I think it's anarchy. What is the opposite of anarchy?
Monarchy. Anarchy was originally defined as the absence of a ruler. Today it is thought of more as the absence of a government.
Monarchs originally were rulers. Queen Elizabeth of Great Britain is not a ruler: she is a tourist attraction. Even her "speech from the throne" is merely something she reads that was written by her government. But I believe that in her capacity she is worth every penny.
King Abdullah of Jordan isn't a ruler either. But he has another role: Spokesman for the Arabs. He is following in his father's footsteps, and in my opinion is doing a good job there.
There are various other monarchs around the world whose reigns have significance only within their countries' borders, and little even there.
On the other hand, today there are military dictators ("Strongmen") whose roles are akin to monarchs of old. Some bear the title of "President"; however they either designated to serve for life or are "elected" in sham functions where the military dictator automatically receives an over-whelming majority of the vote.
Iraq and its predecessors have had many of these in the past. Some were benevolent and beloved, such as Haroun al-Rashid. Others have been tyrannical, like Saddam Hussein. Iraq needs a strongman, but let us hope it is a benevolent one.