The Civil War that Wasn’t

     As the western press continues its never ending campaign to portray the war in Iraq as a disaster I’ve been thinking back to the fall of 2002 when it first became clear the US intended to invade. It should have been no surprise to anyone. It was only a few weeks after September 11 when I first heard a comment from a prominent pundit that it was hard to see how Saddam Hussein could survive. She was right. In the weeks of shock that followed George Bush and a lot of other Americans concluded that the status quo in the Middle East could not be allowed to continue. The Arab world had to be reformed and Saddam was one of the most intransigent obstacles. He represented a festering boil that had to be lanced. I had serious misgivings at the time. We’re talking about a billion or so people with major attitude problems but in the event I supported the decision and I still think it was the right thing to do. The danger now lies not with factional fighting in Iraq but where it always lay, with those Americans who change their minds when the going gets tough.
     An astonishing Arab capacity for self destruction not withstanding, no sane Iraqi Sunni Arab wants a civil war they could not possibly hope to win. They represent only 20% of the population and no longer control the levers of power. If Sunni fanatics were to succeed in provoking a major response from Shiites it would not be civil war. It would be massacre. Every day the army gets stronger and they have now progressed from limited small unit operations to the ability to control significant territory and conduct major military exercises. I use the word “exercises” because there is no real organized enemy left to fight. If I can believe what I read the police forces are infiltrated with militias but given the quality of journalism coming from there you have to take that with a grain of salt too. Frankly I rely more on what the returning troops have to say and they paint a very different picture. When I see scenes of bombings I pay less attention to what the commentators are saying than to the background. There I see cars driving by and people going about their business. What I don’t see is the commentator. They all stay in their hotel rooms and depend on Iraqi stringers for the actual coverage.
     Kurds in the north would like to see an independent Kurdistan but they aren’t about to go to war to get it. They are seeing prosperity for the first time in living memory and have no desire to go back to the bad old days. Shiites don’t want war either. Why on earth would they? They are enjoying majority rule for the first time ever, having been dominated by Sunni Caliphs, Sultans, Kings and dictators since the days of Ali. For them to make war would be to risk a fragmented Iraq. They certainly don’t want that.
     No, despite the apparent desire of many in the west to see or even produce chaos in Iraq it isn’t going to happen. It’s still unlikely a durable democracy will emerge there anytime soon. That was always a long shot. Strongmen like Saddam are almost always replaced by new despots. But security and stability are the most important concerns for now, then economic growth. Given those preconditions democracy may well follow. Without them democracy will surely fail. Either way there will be no civil war.