would jihadists from Pakistan be considered foreign troops? or Iranian QUDS forces? or Syrian military advisors?...time will tell.

Posted by: pulsar182 at August 26, 2008 6:39 AM

Why wait until 2011? Is anything going to change before then? The violence will continue, muslims will keep blowing themselves up, US troops will continue to die.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at August 26, 2008 6:42 AM

Robert's prognosis is likely, but it's not iron-clad.

Iraq does have a vibrant secular constituency among many Sunni and Shia tribes, the National Accord grouping, and among many Kurds in the north, where Christian refugees are welcomed from other parts of Iraq and where woman have been integrated into the security forces. There are also thousands of disaffected Iraqis who have been so put off by the terror of Al Qaeda and the stultifying presence of the Mahdi Army that they've either fallen into that category of "nominal" Muslim or have stopped believing altogether, much the way many Algerians have after the carnage of 25 years of civil war.

I remember reading the comments section of a Middle Eastern blog about a year ago...all the posts from throughout the Arab world were imbued with a hatred of America...with the exception of the Iraqi posters, who were almost uniformly critical of their fellow Arabs, and some of whom were openly critical of Islam itself.

If Iraq can maintain a functioning Democracy, the parameters of flux within the system will allow for functional swings of the pendulum. Just as secularists would probably win in Iran if free elections were held, I can imagine a future when an ineffectual or oppressive Islamist government in Iraq could be voted out in favor of a secular one.

Democracy IS the wild-card. It could certainly be the vehicle for adoption of Sharia, as has happened in several Muslim countries, but if a free vote survives the vicissitudes of Iraq's internal dynamics - and that's a big "if", the prospect of opposition victory always exists, whether that opposition happens to be Islamist or secular. Again, one need only look at public sentiment in Iran to ascertain the extent of disaffection in a Sharia-ruled society.

Posted by: Cornelius at August 26, 2008 7:31 AM

"BY" 2011 or "After" 2011. There's a whole year in between those two.

Why wait? Let's put the withdrawal into fast-forward. Get them out by 2010. On this, even President Obama (barf!) will have my full support.

Posted by: PMK at August 26, 2008 8:45 AM

i'm with ImNoDhimmi on this one. the muslims kill themselves, why should we get our soldiers involved?

Posted by: theygottago at August 26, 2008 8:53 AM

Robert's prognosis is likely, but it's not iron-clad.

cornelius

Brittish reforms in Pakistan are now in danger of disappearing altogether. I would say that when the US leaves, Iraq will follow. Especially with Iran as Iraq's friend. Sharia will ultimately be uniform throughout the middle east primarily because governments in the West refuse to understand Islam and react accordingly. The West is stuck in stupid, as a prominent U.S. General would say.

Posted by: Spot on at August 26, 2008 3:13 PM

You might be spot on, Spot on, but there are dynamics unfolding in the Muslim world that are more effected by Western culture than Western policy.

As pervasive as Islam is as a determinant in Muslim societies, there are other factors and influences at play. I believe the multicultural axiom that the Islamic world is "diverse" and "not monolithic" is overdone, particularly when it comes to the letter of Sharia, but there are indeed divisions - ideological as well as ethnic and sectarian - that CAN and MUST be exploited.

Muslims can be bribed, seduced, and sometimes even prevailed upon through rational discourse and enlightened self-interest...into occasionally betraying their Islamic ethos. It has happened throughout history. The ultimate goal must be to create conditions whereupon that betrayal will become normative...to a point where - just as in the 50s and 60s during the secular hang-over of the post-colonial period, most of the Muslim world payed only lip-service to Islam.

A lofty aspiration? Sure. Naive? Perhaps. But it beats: 'there's nothing we can do'.

Posted by: Cornelius at August 26, 2008 7:55 PM

Three comments on Cornelius's thoughtful (as always) post: 1) He says that "Muslims can be bribed, seduced, and sometimes even prevailed upon through rational discourse and enlightened self-interest...into occasionally betraying their Islamic ethos." True, but other Muslims will be ready and willing to kill them. The crucial variable in those societies isn't democracy but the gun and the bomb. So the question here is whether those who have been bribed, seduced, persuaded by rational discourse, or have discovered their self-interest will be willing to defend themselves and their democratic regime with weapons. The record does not justify optimism. A violent and armed minority will always rule a passive, indifferent, or fearful majority.

2) The reason most of the Muslim world paid only lip-service to Islam a generation ago was that it lacked the means to do otherwise. It now has the means (including, most importantly, technology that it itself could not have invented) and opportunity; it always had the motive.

3) I think it's misleading to present "there's nothing we can do" as the only alternative to working for democracy while hoping for an ever-increasing proportion of democrats in those countries.

Posted by: Aileen at August 27, 2008 6:52 AM