this life saddens

Hello, folks~
I'd be curious as to what your your opinion is on how history will judge the war with Iraq 10 years from now? Do you think it will be considered a success or failure?
I received this question as a topic for a history paper, and i think it's totally ridiculous. The war isn't even over, and i'm supposed to be making judgments about its aftermath?
Personally, i doubt that Iraq is capable of democracy after a history of dictatorship, as demonstrated by the looting that's going on and other countries that we've tried to impose our system upon....but that's presuming that we do try to make a democratic, capitalist republic out of them.
Any ideas? Thanks!

PsycheDelia

of course it will be judged a success. after all, history is written by the victors. but before we judge the success or failure of anything we must first consider the objectives.

before the war began the objectives stated were
1. getting rid of saddam's wmd
2. protecting americans against attack (hence the need for a 'pre-emptive strike' - to prevent a potential future threat)

once the war began the objective changed to liberating the iraqi people from a cruel dictator.

so if you look at the stated objectives, and judge the success of the war based on that you have no answer really. if the coalition forces do not find any wmd, then was the mission a success? and as for the second point you can say that it is a success if iraq never attacks the usa in the future, but what if an attack never came, even without the war? removing a 'maybe' doesn't mean that it existed in the first place.

however if you look at liberating the iraqi people from saddam, sure, the war has been a success already from the looks of things. but that was never one of the original goals, just the more easily attained one, and it did make for some great television.

and then there are the unstated objectives - control of iraq's oil, and a presence in the region. successful on both counts....

HaysooChreesto!

If you wouldn't suffer a poor grade, the only thing that you could realistically write on the assignment would be "Ask me in 10 years".
Will democracy work in Iraq? No one knows. Will it be given a chance? Yes.
While the argument can be made that Iraq's never had a representative government and therefore can't have one now , it doesn't mean that it will never work. History is important but it seems that naysayers are using it as a bludgeon when making their case.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

I'm not concerned with their history per se as to whether or not it will work--I'm concerned about the necessary conditions for democracy to take. Iraqis aren't terribly well educated, and they lack a unifying cultural identity (that is to say, they don't all think of themselves as being the same people). These two factors will make it unlikely to be an effective, much less strong, democracy. However, it makes it ripe for dictators and monarchs.

Farren

IMHO,

1) The US should be thinking of a phased rapid exit program right now
2) That should be coupled with the entry of UN peacekeepers
3) The UN should oversee the establishment of a new government
4) Since The original borders were drawn by colonial administrators without regard to ethnicity or culture, Iraqi interest groups should be offered the option of dividing the country into several smaller nations.
5) The views of Turkey, who would not like to see a working Kurdish nation on their own borders, should not be a factor in this equation.

Optional

That's one of the best ideas I've seen. It would probably end up as three nations, from what I know of the situation... Kurd in the north, Shi'a in the south, and Sunni in the middle. The Shi'a are the ones we really need to worry about, since they'll most likely be aligning with Iran, but they'll be a third the size of Iraq, so easier to manage. Or am I reading this wrong?

-me

Gurdur

uh huh. And what do you think the Tirks might do in reaction ?

BTW, if you include Turkey in the Middle East, they have the every best army. And they're well-practiced in using it.

ImGod

The biggest problem with splitting the country apart is they'll have to share the oil fields between the different countries.

Hot Karl

^that would probably be enough to spark up a civil war. even if it's as little as a 2% difference for one region, that's practically billions of dollars...

Farren

OK, so they should be included in the equation ... by way of holding them in check. As I see it they really have no moral high ground with regard to Kurdish relations.