Iraq fragmented

Tanker and Mary Ellen just did a couple of nice love-and-peace posts. And here I am piling in with Iraq War news. Oh well, it's balance, right? Yin and yang and all that?

The September 2004 Chatham House report I quoted in my previous post has a compact definition of the "fragmentation" stage of the Iraq War, then only projected. They use nice British euphemisms in this report, e.g., "fragmentation" for "civil war". Here's how they defined that stage:

The Fragmentation Scenario represents what will happen if competing elements and interests in Iraq fail to cohere under the new interim government and the combined efforts of the IIG [Interim Iraqi Government], the US forces and UN personnel prove powerless to reverse the trend. Indeed, the continued US presence could contribute to fragmentation in the near term, if it is seen to be the power behind the new interim government, variously ignoring it or pulling the strings.

Essentially this is the default scenario, in the sense that it best describes the tendencies at work which have to be overcome in order to avoid fragmentation. Under this scenario Kurdish separatism and Shi'a assertiveness work against a smooth transition to elections, while the Sunni Arab minority remains on the defensive and engaged in resistance. Antipathy to the US presence grows, not so much in a unified Iraqi nationalist backlash, but rather in a fragmented manner that could presage civil war if the US cuts and runs. [And maybe even if the US "stays the course", Bruce says with 20-20 hindsight] Even if US forces try to hold out and prop up the central authority it may still lose control. At the end of his fact-finding trip to Iraq in February 2004, UN Representative Lakhdar Brahimi warned that the ingredients for civil war were apparent. His warnings should be heeded. (my emphasis in bold)

| +Save/Share | |