Getting a better view of what to expect in Iraq

President Bush certainly won bragging rights in Thursday's elections in Iraq.
The turnout, estimated at 70 percent, was strong across all three major religious and ethic divides -- the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunnis. It is an important step toward establishing the first democratic Arab government in the Middle East.
The United States should, of course, favor a democratic government over an autocratic one -- although historically it has been more than willing to prop up dictators when doing so served U.S. interests. But in Iraq, democracy has the potential for getting much messier than it does here in America.
Starting anew
For one thing, this is a nascent democracy and it will take a great deal of discipline by Iraqi politicians of all factions to work together to make the government function. Even seasoned democracies find it difficult to function when the majority takes the position that the minority is irrelevant. In an emerging democracy, such disrespect for the "losers" could spell disaster.
In addition, Iraq appears destined to have, at best, a weak central government in the foreseeable future. If the Kurds put a higher value on developing a semi-independent north and the Shiites develop their own provincial identity in the oil-rich South, the Sunnis would be left with Baghdad and a few poor provinces in the central and west portions of the country.
It would make the economic and cultural differences that nearly split the United States 145 years ago look like a neighborhood dispute.
Though private militias are officially outlawed, both Kurdish and Shiite blocs in the current transitional government maintain thousands of armed fighters. These forces are supposed to be absorbed into the national police force or the army, but until they are -- and perhaps even afterward -- they remain a threat to domestic tranquility.
Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S. commander, told Pentagon reporters in a video teleconference Friday that he will make recommendations in the next few weeks about troop withdrawals from Iraq. But even while doing so he warned that insurgents may escalate their attacks to demonstrate they "are still strong and a factor to be reckoned with."
"We should not expect the insurgency to just go away because of yesterday's great success," Casey said. "But we should expect it to be gradually weakened and reduced as more and more Iraqis adopt the political process and the root causes of the insurgency are addressed by the new Iraqi government and by the coalition."
The president speaks
Since Nov. 30, President Bush has made four major addresses regarding Iraq and the U.S. presence there. Some of the messages he has sent have been mixed. He began that series of talks by announcing that his administration has a "Plan for Victory." He declared in another speech that knowing what he knows now, he would still have invaded Iraq. The other day, he acknowledged that some of the intelligence used to justify invading was wrong.
Sunday night, the President will address the nation. He is expected to speak from the Oval Office for about 20 minutes.
He has a lot of ground to cover in a relatively short amount of time if the American people are to have a better understanding of what his goals are in Iraq and what the anticipated costs are of achieving those goals. No one can expect the president to set a date certain when the last U.S. soldier will leave Iraq. But certainly President Bush should be able to tell the American people what he envisions being able to turn over to his successor in January 2009 -- a military in which boots on the ground in Iraq can be counted in the thousands or the tens of thousands.
In dollars, the war has cost between $300 billion and $500 billion, depending on who is doing the accounting. Surely the president knows now what the war can be expected to cost American taxpayers over the next three years.
It has been a long time since anyone in the administration claimed that the cost of rebuilding Iraq would be covered by the Iraqis themselves through the sale of oil. But that it was ever said, makes candor by the president necessary now.