To draw an interesting parallel with the British experience in Iraq, once again I will quote Toby Dodge’s Inventing Iraq:

[Iraq’s] government and economy were still financially dependent upon the British Exchequer. The commitments previously given to the League [of Nations] by both Britain and Iraq concerning the inclusion of and comity among the different ethnic and religious communities were discarded to achieve Iraq’s formal independence as quickly as possible…

The League’s demand that Iraq have a “settled” government and administration capable of operating essential services had in fact been met. But Iraq was nowhere near being able to fulfill the other four criteria of internationally sanctioned sovereignty: that the state be “capable of maintaining its territorial integrity and political independence,” that it be “able to maintain the public peace throughout the whole territory,” that it have “adequate financial resources to provide regularly for normal Government requirements,” and that it have laws that afforded “equal and regular justice to all.”

I’ve already written about British public pressure and its impact on Britain’s activities in Iraq during the Mandate period. US public pressure is now shaping its Iraq policy in much the same way. The White House no longer mentions post-war Japan or Germany as a model for Iraq, instead it alludes to ethnic/sectarian strife, lawlessness, co-opting of public institutions by various factions and lack of force monopoly. Secretary of State Rice highlighted these issues in her remarks to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

We know our objectives. We and the Iraqi Government will succeed if together we can:

• Break the back of the insurgency so that Iraqis can finish it off without large-scale military help from the United States.
• Keep Iraq from becoming a safe haven from which Islamic extremists can terrorize the region or the world.
• Demonstrate positive potential for democratic change and free expression in the Arab and Muslim worlds, even under the most difficult conditions.
• And turn the corner financially and economically, so there is a sense of hope and a visible path toward self-reliance.

Nothing new in her speech, except perhaps some goalpost-shifting with an emphasis on helping Iraq set a “path” to democracy and a “visible path” to self-reliance. A bit weak when compared to the President’s swaggering confidence in 2003:

We will help you build a peaceful and representative government that protects the rights of all citizens. And then our military forces will leave. Iraq will go forward as a unified, independent and sovereign nation that has regained a respected place in the world. (April 10, 2003)

The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq. (May 1, 2003)

Iraqi democracy will succeed -- and that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Teheran -- that freedom can be the future of every nation. (November 6, 2003)

Reality's a bitch, eh?