The Economist, as well as a recent Op-Ed in the Times, are suggesting that the US should stay in Iraq but make the troops less visible. The idea is that if American soldiers spend most of their time at military bases in the middle of nowhere, Iraqis won't feel occupied and would go about building their country. This idea is, unfortunately, extremely naive. If during the Revolutionary War the British retreated to their forts, would the Americans have simply stopped fighting them? One cannot build a country with a hated occupier on the ground, ready to jump in with its troops at any moment. The authors of the above articles seem to be thinking of American-occupied Italy 60 years ago, or even Syrian-occupied Lebanon 10-20 years ago, but those cases are very different from Iraq.
There were no daily grizzly attacks back then because the occupied did not perceive that their nations were at risk of being annihilated. The main reason that was true then but is not true in Iraq is the difference in religion between the occupied and occupier or lack thereof. As Robert Pape convincingly demonstrates in his recent book "Dying to Win," language and cultural differences do not matter as much as religious difference does with respect to suicide terrorism, which is Iraq's biggest problem right now. So even if American soldiers become invisible, no Iraqi will suddenly believe that they have an independent and fair government, and not a puppet of the US.
Most people agree that when the US leaves Iraq, a brutal civil war will follow. What no one can really know is whether the US staying will prevent that war. It is clear that the US will not stay forever, so are we saving anyone's life by staying longer? Several congressmen have now come up with plans to try to reduce violence by divinding Iraq. The Economist argues that partitioning is a bad idea, and cites Yugoslavia and Kashmir as two proofs. Although I agree that Kashmir is a difficult problem, I don't see how Yugoslavia can be cited as an example of the failing of partitioning. A united Yugoslavia, especially one under Milosevic, wouldn't possibly be better than the separate countries that exist today. Croatia, for example, has become a tourism magnet for people from all over the world and has become a free and democratic state. Nobody there misses united Yugoslavia, even though independence cost many lives.
It is impossible to say with certainty what would happen in Iraq if partition did take place, but it is not a given that it would be worse than the carnage that will follow the American withdrawal no matter what.
