Fareed Zakaria comes to a conclusion:
When Iraq’s current government was formed last April, after four months of bitter disputes, wrangling and paralysis, many voices in America and in Iraq said the next six months would be the crucial testing period…. It has now been almost six months, [and] the violence has gotten worse, sectarian tensions have risen steeply and ethnic cleansing is now in full swing. There is really no functioning government south of Kurdistan…. It is time… to recognize that the Iraqi government has failed. It is also time to face the terrible reality that America’s mission in Iraq has substantially failed.
I don’t quote this with any joy, but nor do I feel any surprise. Think back over the last 100 years: how many unilateral attempts to impose political change on another country have succeeded? Italy over Ethiopia? Russia over Eastern Europe? Germany over Poland (and then Europe, and then Russia)? Japan over China and SE Asia? France and the US over Vietnam? The UK and France over Egypt? The US over Cuba? Israel over Lebanon? Russia over Afghanistan? Iraq over Iran? Argentina over the Falklands?
All failed. Arguably the only relatively durable large-scale changes over the last century arose from civil wars, such as in Spain and China, and from post-colonial effects such as the slow-motion revolution in South Africa.
And so when I supported the invasion of Afghanistan in 2002, I did so for purely tactical reasons; I had no expectation that any lasting changes would arise. And when I opposed the invasion of Iraq, it was not simply a question of illegality: it seemed such a profoundly stupid, historically ignorant thing to do. A blood-soaked failure seemed inevitable. (The extraordinary rapidity and cluelessness of that failure belongs solely to the Cheney administration, however.)
(Via Sully.)
UPDATE: In the comments, Chas argues against me and Zakaria, but the evidence is mounting that the only thing holding back a radical shift in policy is…. domestic politics. Yup. Same as always. Sigh…..