Iraq - disillusionment

The dreaded Daniel Pipes has penned an interesting article on the parlous socio-political conditions in Iraq at present. With the usual caveat that I don't commend the entire article uncritically, some observations strike me as creditable, or at least plausible :

"When Washington and its allies toppled the hideous regime of Saddam Hussein ... they bestowed a historic benefit on Iraqis, a population that had been wantonly oppressed by the Stalinist dictator.

"Unsurprisingly, his regime quickly fell to outside attack ... That six-week victory remains a glory of American foreign policy and of the coalition forces. It also represents a personal achievement for President Bush, who made the key decisions.

"But the president decided that this mission was not enough. Dazzled by the examples of post-World War II Germany and Japan – whose transformations in retrospect increasingly appear to have been one-time achievements – he committed troops in the pursuit of creating a 'free and democratic Iraq.' This noble aim was inspired by the best of America's idealism.

"But nobility of purpose did not suffice for rehabilitating Iraq ... Iraqis, a predominantly Muslim population newly liberated from their totalitarian dungeon, were disinclined to follow the American example; for their part, the American people lacked a deep interest in the welfare of Iraq. This combination of forces guarantees the coalition cannot impose its will on 26 million Iraqis.

"... Fixing Iraq is neither the coalition's responsibility nor its burden. The damage done by Saddam will take many years to repair. Americans, Britons, and others cannot be tasked with resolving Sunni-Shiite differences, an abiding Iraqi problem that only Iraqis themselves can address.

"... Civil war in Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian tragedy but not a strategic one."

I find the question of coalition "responsibilities" interesting. While I'm sure that those who defend the extremes that we either owe the Iraqis nearly everything, or hardly anything, are mistaken, it's not easy to stake out an advised position of where such obligations lie. I possess no expertise particularly relevant to the question of the strategic dimension of a full-fledged civil war; on the human level it certainly makes me shudder.

While I don't know, I wonder whether we're on the verge of heeding the (in)famous call for a little rhetorical-existential legerdemain: declare a "victory" - and leave.