iraq has no middle class anymore, who can is fleeing or already out of iraq. the nation has a great lack of qualified personell, such as doctors, engineer mid and high level officals etc. why did they run off? because criminals and terrorists shot their families down, or their neighbours or friends as a warning. after some good people got killed around you, everyone would run. these people were and are able to flee, because they can sell enough property to gain money for a safe escape. at daytime US and iraq patrols can prevent those killings, but the night still is time for new butchering. so first of all, iraq (and most of all the nations centre around Bagdad) needs more security around the time.
ethic problems are the next topic. three factions are still struggeling for more power: Kurds, Sunnits and Shiits
Under the rule of Saddam, Sunnits hold all key offices in administration and economy. After the collapse of the regime they had to fllee or at last step down. this caused a vacuum, bebause there were and are not enough skilled people to fill these positions. if you follow the media, you would find news relating to shot high officals, these were the top elite who filled the first vacuum. kill enough experts and at some time chaos is ruling the administration. these kills had a show effect to the other skilled managers who fled outside the nation, when they could not live in the security of the green zone. Sunnits are still underrepresented and the only chance to get the job done ist to reinstall old Saddam officals (who often ordered the killing of their sucessors). But this is not possible atm because of the other two ethics.
The Shiits are still the ethic with the highest part of the population. In their logic the majority has to rule the nation, and the majority are the shiits. Shiits are linked to Iran, because it is the only shiit nation in the world. This is natural behavior in the world. As you all know relations between USA and Iran are at best worse. For US-policies it is under no circumstances possible that an Iran friendly government is ruling Iraq. So the Shiits are kept away from power as good as possible. You can imagine that the Shiits are pretty unhappy about that and will continue to listen more to the wishes of theheran than to bagdad. what is needed here should be clear: democracy is defined by the rule of the majority. when shiits win the coming elections, they should rule the country. in the same way they have to be installed at key officals to represent their power and in the same way show them, that a nation cannot be ruled by their faction alone. at the beginning they will rule at the command of iran, but when they grip to power is tightend, they will start to regin in their own interest.
Kurds: the kurds are in good control of northern iraq, but their economic independence is not secure. kurds are still trying to gain control over the north-iraq oil production centre around Mossul. the way to gain control is old: remove local citizens and replace them with kurds, when they have the majority they can claim this area for the kurds. when the kurds can accomplish that, they will reach economic independence and may even try to install their own nation. this has to be stopped, even if US-forces have to install overall controll in the north too (which is actually not really in effect). like the shiits, the kurds have to be more integrated in the nations administration and economy by appointing mid and high level officals in key positions.
Security:
The USA is losing two wars: Afganistan and iraq, because they lack the manpower for both battlefields. there are two ways: Send more men in both battlefields, or concentrate on a single target.
More men: Both battlefields have their own problems in the international system. For Iraq even a president Obama won't find much more nations for support than Bush had at its best time in there. "Old europe" will never send troops there, not after Bushs actions. US credit dropped so deep down in the world in 8 years, that all democratic nations have great problems to convince their electors for more troops for US-battlefields.
So, where to look next? There is an easy way for iraq: Send standart UN-Forces into it. In most cases they come from half dictatorships in africa or south east asia, are poorly armed an get overrun quickly. When the mission has failed, the UN failed it, not the USA or their axis. Second are troops out of the region, giving the nation under control by the neighbours like Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Syria etc. This would lead to a great instability and fast to a war between the factions for the control of the iraqi oil ressources.
The other option is to withdraw one battlefield. In the end it is iraqi oil vs. afgani drug fields. The choice is simple.
democracy:
When you have a middle class, agreements between the 3 ethics for a iraqi nation and security, the US can try to rise a democracy, which would need about 10-20 years to reach a point we can call it firm.
breaking up scenario:
breaking up oraq is no solution, but the start of an region wide war. atm iraq is a buffer between iraq and saudi arabia. both are extremly religious countries, what results in a deep hate on each other. as the Shiits are in the overall majority in the south, they will claim this region for their nation, giving Iran direct access to the Saudi-Arabian border. A scenario Riad would never accept. Turkey can never allow the kurds to establish their own nation, because of the kurdi minorities in south east turkey. the result would be an invasion...
)