A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days

That is the question, and after the recent horrific bombing, it is a justifiable query. I think as long as this holds up, however, the answer will be "No." Or at least "Not yet":

With the streets of the capital and other major cities largely emptied by an extraordinary daytime curfew, imams across Iraq called Friday for an end to the sectarian rioting that has left more than 170 people dead over the past three days, as political leaders held emergency meetings to contain the crisis.

But in their sermons and public statements, both Sunni and Shiite political and clerical leaders also betrayed an ominous polarization of attitudes about who was at fault for the outbreak of violence, along with an increased hostility to the American role in Iraq.

Iraqi leaders and American officials seemed acutely aware that the conflict, which began Wednesday in Samarra after a bomb shattered the dome at one of Iraq's most sacred Shiite shrines, could still push Iraq into a catastrophic civil war, with implications for the entire region.

In an address to the nation on Friday, Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari extended the daytime curfew for a second day, and prohibited all traffic in and out of Baghdad except for ambulances and police and government vehicles. The leaders of Iraq's major political groups also met Friday to discuss responses, including the formation of a new advisory committee with American military commanders to manage the violence, and a possible ban on carrying weapons without authorization.

So matters would appear to exist on a knife's edge. The good news is that the clergy is being responsible and is calling for restraint. The bad news is that followers may not listen. I think this militates in favor of avoiding civil war, for now. But no one should think that we are out of the woods when it comes to ensuring a lack of civil war in Iraq.

One of the potential tragedies of the situation, of course, is that so many of the boundaries in the Middle East--Iraq's included--are artificial in nature, having been imposed by foreigners. There is not and should not be any real historical integrity in keeping these boundaries, and indeed, by abandoning them, we may be able to achieve greater stability. There is recent precedent for this kind of thing; after all, East and West Germany united at the end of the Cold War and Czechoslovakia split apart. But if Iraq is allowed to split apart, it will inevitably be seen in the short run as a catastrophic failure on the part of the United States and all those involved in the reconstruction effort. And so, regardless of the long term benefits it may bring to allow Iraq to split apart, we are pretty much committed to keeping it together.

(Cross posted on RedState and No End But Victory.)