Ha ha! Well, that' s the problem with using analogies, someone can always come along and take yours and go you one better.
So you believe, I take it, that there is literally nothing that we can do that has a prayer of turning Iraq onto a course which will lead to a democratic government -- with all the reservations one has to make about democratic governments? You believe all is lost?
I think there is virtually no chance of establishing a "democratic" government in Iraq. Having spent a lot of time with the people/cultures of the region, and over the last couple of years a having spent more than half my time in the region, I think it is quite impossible.
Look at the reality of the situation. We (the USA) are trying to force a governmental model that even we don't use upon a culture far more divided than we were when we had to opt for Federalism over a central "Democratic" government. Doesn't it just seem silly on the face of it? This is not Germany or Japan, which had, for the most part, homogeneous populations after they were defeated. It is much more like Serbia except where the division in Serbia was between two ethnic groups and dated back only about 50 years, in Iraq there are 3 ethnic groups (really more but they fall into 3 main groups) and the divisions go back over a millennium!
Had the post war been run correctly it might, maybe, have been possible to establish a peaceful and for the most part democratic government in Iraq, but I think now it is impossible. The would have to have been shown "the good life". Power and water service needed to be re-established quickly. Quality of life had to be at least as good as it was under Saddam within the first year. We would have needed at least three times the troops to control sectarian violence, and we would have had to prevent the corruption on both sides that has turned this thing into the worst boondoggle of American history. And finally, we needed to respect their culture at all times - Abu Ghraib sealed the deal ensuring we would never win the hearts and minds we desperately needed if we were to achieve victory.
The "surge" should really be called the "sham". The Bush administration tries to claim the surge is responsible for the reduction in sectarian violence. What they (and the so called "drive by media") do not tell you is that coincident with the surge is a huge change in US policy. We have made deals with dominant tribes, mostly Sunni, effectively giving them regional autonomy,
something they asked for and were denied 3 years ago! They now control and patrol their own areas rather than attacking us, which has improved security. They have driven out Al-Qaeda not because they have seen the light, but rather that Al-Qaeda's interests now conflict with their own.
I believe the answer at this point is to divide the country into as many states as possible under a model very similar to that which we use. The problem is how to distribute the oil revenue. And the root of this problem is - CHENEY! VP Cheney, and therefore Pres. Bush, cling to the idea that privatization of the oil in Iraq is essential. This of course is contrary to any kind of proportional division of the revenue plan that would be a necessary building block of any Federated Democracy that might be created in Iraq.
As long as there are such deep religious and cultural divisions in Iraq
AND there is no fair economic incentive toward peace there is no hope of victory in Iraq.
And in the end it is all about the oil. This war was started with the belief it could be paid for with oil from Iraq. If we simply pull out as some suggest, then we will have to bear the full burden of the outrageous cost of this fiasco. And this is something I don't think the American people can accept.
This war is the biggest FUCK-UP in American history! When all is said and done the USA may have lost its position as the #1 super-power.
