Success in Iraq
The war in Iraq is not an issue I have examined closely and researched in order to understand historical context or actions that could end the conflict, but I have given some thought to the direction that the war could take in the future. The way I see it, there are basically two ways the U.S. can achieve its goals in Iraq: change its goals, or for the first time in history, that I know of at least, build a functional state through military occupation.
The goal of U.S. forces in Iraq is to establish a stable government that persists after it is gone. This is a goal that cannot be partially fulfilled- a government is either stable, or it is unstable. Changing this goal is therefore tantamount to failing without admitting that you failed. This is the U.S. government's current path, because I strongly doubt that withdrawing from Iraq in the near future would leave any semblance of government. That being said, withdrawal is preferable to the Bush administration's current plan of "Keep fucking up," but they're opposing Congress and the majority of Americans, so that plan will end when Bush's reign ends.
You might think it obvious that a lack of government in Iraq is bad, but the reasons why are subtle. Iraq is often compared to Vietnam, which is true because both wars were unjustified and highly unpopular. Two important differences are the nature of the opposition in both cases, and the economies of the two countries. The economy is important because the Vietnamese government currently likes the U.S. government, at least as a trading partner, and the public does not resent the U.S. because it has benefited from export-led economic development. The Iraqi people, on the other hand, would not benefit from trade because Iraq has oil, and oil often leads to inequality and corruption. Saudi Arabia may officially be an ally of the U.S., but its people have a militant dislike of the U.S.. Finally, as the U.S. left South Vietnam the Vietcong moved in, but there is no unified heir to power in Iraq. Rather, there's a brewing civil war between the various factions.
The only way I could see this civil war being averted was if Iraq had a government that could mollify and control the various factions. Unfortunately, historically governments are made by motivated citizens of the nation, not by occupying forces, but if the occupying forces leave then the government will be formed after the civil war, if at all. As I mentioned before, achieving its current goal would be a completely new event in history, to my knowledge. That doesn't make it impossible, just difficult. It would be one thing if the U.S. had popular support, at home or in Iraq, but it has neither. The U.S. would have to convince its people once more of the possibility of success, and then would have the impressive task of convincing the Iraqi people. On top of that it would have to unify the opposing factions to at least form a functioning government together. All of this would require a will and finesse of American politicians that rivals history's greatest leaders, and the U.S. currently has George W. Bush.
From the cases that I have read about, important reforms are brought about by motivated people who have power, charisma, and the intelligence to see what is necessary in the long run and bring it about. Both governments need people like this. The U.S. needs to decrease violence and improve living conditions in order to convince the Iraqi people to let them stay, which would require more soldiers and more money, both of which require the support of Congress, as well as presumably the American people. It is also possible for the U.S. to appeal to the rest of the world for assistance, but given the U.S. past actions this is unlikely. The Iraqi government would need to be reformed to allow participation of all factions, which would require the involvement of key religious figures, many of whom direct or condone the militant aspects of the factions. One idea is to separate Iraq into regions, by sect, that have greater autonomy, which would limit militants to their own zones. (I'm not sure Iraq can be separated this way, because Shiites and Sunnis seem pretty mixed.) The Iraqi security forces would also need to become effective, which would hopefully result from the U.S. funding and the reduction of sectarian tensions. This government would finally have to establish an economy that does not rely on U.S. assistance, as well as the various other functions that a state must fulfil.
My ideas are rough and fanciful, but you can see that nation-building appears to be an extremely difficult, but nonetheless possible, process. It would have been nice if the U.S. had tried some of these things three years ago, but wishful thinking doesn't make the world any better. I suppose that by now things have degraded to the point where success in Iraq truly is impossible, especially given the less-than-stellar presidential candidates running in the U.S. Iraq's future may be solely in the hands of the Iraqis, which unfortunately may become a more violent Iraq. It would hardly be good for world peace and stability (or the "War on Terror,") but may well be good for Iraq in the long run.
While on the subject, I would highly recommend watching this presentation on "How to fix broken states" by the ex-Afghan Financial minister Ashraf Ghani. He explains himself better than I could explain him.
