THE IRAQ WAR is now 3 years old, and only a paid administration apologist could claim that it has gone swimmingly well. The truth is that the war has cost more and lasted longer than its advocates had envisioned, and there is still no end in sight.
It is sobering to reflect how long even an unsuccessful insurgency can run. Israel has been battling Palestinian guerrillas since the 1940s. Colombia has been battling Marxist guerrillas since the 1960s. Britain battled Irish guerrillas nearly continuously from the mid-19th century until recent years. Even the campaign often cited by experts as a model counterinsurgency -- Britain's defeat of a communist uprising in Malaya -- took 12 years to succeed, from 1948 to 1960.
It might have been possible to avoid such a costly and protracted conflict in Iraq if Central Command and the Defense Department had been better prepared for the "post-conflict" phase of operations. But, as we now know, there was a horrifying and inexplicable failure to undertake adequate preparation for running Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The most criticized aspect of this failure -- and rightly so -- was not sending enough troops to control a population of 25 million. The lack of security allowed the insurgency to flare up and spread like wildfire across the Sunni landscape. Now this rebellion is proving nearly impossible to stamp out. Indeed, it may trigger a wider conflagration as Shiites take up arms to defend their hard-won political gains.
Is Iraq already in the middle of a civil war? That depends on the meaning of "civil war." Clearly there is increasing internecine violence, and if Iraq isn't already in a civil war, it is heading that way. But bad as the situation is, it could get far, far worse if the U.S. were to withdraw prematurely. At the moment, the presence of about 136,000 U.S. troops is, believe it or not, keeping a lid on the violence and limiting the options of the most extreme elements in both the Sunni and Shiite communities.
At least 30,000 Iraqis have died over the last three years, largely at the hands of ruthless terrorists. But the current period would seem paradisiacal if a full-blown civil war were to erupt. An all-out sectarian conflict could resemble the bloodbaths in the Balkans, Rwanda and Sudan, with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, dying and neighboring states being drawn into the fray. If that were to happen, there would be a call for international intervention led by -- who else? -- the United States. We would be back exactly where we are today: in the middle of Iraq, trying to preserve a modicum of security and urging the various factions to cut a deal to end the fighting.
