Voices In The Wilderness
If the United States stays they will prevent civil war. That may be true (it is a possibility but not an absolute) but the idea that that is any kind of solution is simply wrong. The United States tries to show itself as a messianic figure able to solve all of the world's problems if only given enough authority. The sad reality may be that a better Iraq would come out of a civil war. Not to say that a civil war is the best solution but an unoccupied nation is part one of any long term solution. It seems as if unoccupied land at this time would end up in civil war which is why I make the statement.
More below...
Afghanistan went through civil war and they were better off for it (of course they are right back where they were because of international intervention post 9/11). Rwanda, one of the world worst stories, went through genocide and it only stopped when Tutsie rebels were able to gain the upper hand. Looking back it may have been necessary to go through that civil war (as horrific as it was) to start the healing process. What seemed to be a major problem in the Rwandan Genocide seemed to be the fact that internationals were financially supporting and arming one side of the war leaving the other side defenseless. This coupled with certain other factors created an atmosphere that encouraged genocide.
Some may point out, and rightly so, that the United States are currently arming what in the end is not an Iraqi military but one side of an potential civil war, essentially Shiite and Kurdish Militias. The situation in Afghanistan is similar, Internationals intervening in a civil war which was, as Michael Scheuer alludes to in his book "Imperial Hubris", nearing its end and a stabilizing force for the nation. Now the United States and its international allies, primarily Nato forces, are training and arming Tajik's, Uzbek, Shiites and other minorities known as the "Northern Alliance" as well as some westernized Afghans and warlords. This may seem like a good idea on its face (stable government) but the reality is these types of actions and policies that will prepare an environment for genocide. Intervening in tribal and sectarian squabbles is rarely a good idea with the exception of, in my opinion, arming the rebels of a vastly weaker side of war as in the Rwandan Genocide.
While it is true that the presence of the United States in Iraq is potentially preventing a full scale civil war Nation States need the power and the ability to solve their own problems. Civil war is, in my estimation, a horrible solution but it is simply the best solution that exists for the Iraqis (until they themselves find a better way). Of course the key is that it is the best solution for the Iraqis and not the international community (as that would bring about troublesome times for the worlds oil markets). I don't have the numbers but I am under the impression that Iraq's oil exports are drastically lower than pre-war number in any case. It seems near sighted to only consider the short term benefits of supporting one faction of another.
I knew that entering Iraq was a bad idea and that it would be difficult. The surprise however has been the complete lack of knowledge of the region that has been displayed by the American & British forces, the complete lack of preparation, the complete and utter disregard for Iraq's neighbors and their concerns. The insurgency hasn't been diminishing, if anything they have been getting wiser and stronger in their attacks. This debacle literally has the potential to drag on for a decade in basically the same manner. The solution to this problem is not in the unending occupation of Iraq by American and British forces but it can be found in the exodus of those forces. I am not ignorant of American politics and as such I understand the need for the President to seem strong and in control, especially given the fact that mid-term elections are ever closer. As a solution the American should look at, not stabilizing a government that may or may not be pro-western but in allowing the natural process of sectarian conflict to take its course. The American soldier that will inevitably remain in the country should be essentially border security ensuring that foreigners do not cross the borders from Iran, Syria, and Turkey. Logically Americans will also need to ensure a certain level of human intelligence to ensure that there is no foreign aid coming in from the outside. Such a solution seems counter productive but as I have described above there is much evidence that suggest that a civil war would not mean the end of Iraq. The insurgency might not be as willing to fight with American soldiers on the sidelines as they would otherwise (as a potential added bonus). The bottom line is whether the American's leave the region completely, redeploy the troops outside of Iraq or work only to protect the borders the fact remains that the only thing that shouldn't be done is what is being done right now. Stay the course is not a solution nor is it a plan.