The realistic vision of Iraq's future is emerging—slowly
■"An Islamic Democracy for Iraq: Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's leading Shiite cleric, may well be the country's best hope—and not because he represents its Shiite majority," essay by Ian Buruma, New York Times Magazine, 5 December 2004, p. 42.■"Mayhem in Iraq Is Starting to Look Like a Civil War: Sunnis vs. Shiites and Kurds," by Edward Wong, New York Times, 5 December 2004, p. WK5.
Both of these articles suggest that America is beginning to see the light on Iraq. Democracy is an end, not a means, so Iraq's progress will be something both far less desired and yet far more practical than previously imagined by the Neocons. We'll see either ruling coalitions in a shared rule over Iraq proper, or a federation of Kurds and Shiites with the Sunnis in long revolt.
As this comes to pass, we must expect the Shiite portion of Iraq to go theocratic to some degree. Nothing wrong with that, so long as it moves the rump state-let in the direction of democracy over time. "Islamic" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive. We managed with the Protestants here in America's colonial infancy, and we grew beyond that. Ultimately, if Iraq is going to be a fully functioning and integrated state, it will have to grow beyond such religiously-based identifiers of nationalism. But for now, we need to be realistic.
As for this notion of "civil war," that's becoming more accurate in many ways. The Kurds and the Shiites are ready to sign on to the post-Saddam political reality imposed by the U.S. and its allies, whereas some/many Sunnis are not. Over time, the Sunnis begin targeting the Shiites and Kurds, and those two groups will respond in kind.