自動翻訳サイト（OCNのサイトで英語を日本語に日本語を英語に翻訳出来ます、かなり高度の参照が出来ます。）

サダム、フセイン後のイラクを予想しています。
翻訳してみて下さい。

After Saddam By Thomas L. Friedman
Remaking Iraq looks like a tall order

WASHINGTON
Is Iraq a totalitarian dictatorship under a cruel, ironfisted man because it is an Arab Yugoslavia - a highly tribalized、 artificial state drawn up by the British, consisting of Shiites in the south, Kurds in the north and Sunnis in the center - whose historical ethnic rivalries can be managed only by a figure like Saddam Hussein?
Or has Iraq by now congealed into a real nation? And once the cruel fist of Saddam is replaced by a more enlightened leadership, Iraq's talented, educated people will slowly produce a federal democracy.
Any U.S. invasion of Iraq will leave the United States responsible for nation-building there. So Americans need to understand what kind of raw material they will be working with. 　Iraq7s history is a saga of inrigue, murder and endless coups involving the different ethnic and political factions that were thrown together by the British.
In Juiy 1958, King Faisal was gunned down in his courtyard by military plotters led by Brigadier Abdel karim kassen and Colonel Abdul Salam Arif. A few months latter Kassem ousted Arif for being too pro-Nasserite. Around the same time a young Saddam tried, but failed, to kill Kassem, who himself executed a slew of Iraqi Nasserites in Mosul in 1959.
In 1963, Arif came back from exile and killed Kassem. Soon Arif and te Ba'ath Party thugs around him savagely slaughtered and thousands of left-wings and Communists all across Iraq.
Arif ruled until 1966, when he was killed in a helicopter in 1968 by saddm and his clan from the village of Tikrit. That was when Saddam first began sending away his opponents to a prison called Qasr al -Nahiya - the Paace of the End.・br> Since 1958, every one of these Sunni-dominated military regimes began with a honymoon with the Kurds in northern Iraq and ended up fighting them.
The point here is that we are talking about nation-building from scrach. Iraq has a lot of natural resources and decently educated population, but it has none of the civil society or rule-of-law roots that enabled the United States to quickly build democracies out of the ruins of Germany and Japan after Worls War �U. Iraq's last leader committed to the rule of law may have been Hammurabi ・the King of Babylon in the 18th century B.C.
So once Saddam is gone there will be a power vacuum, revenge killings and ethnic pulling and tugging between kurds, Sunnis and Shiites.
This is not a reason for not taking Saddam out. It is a reason to prepare for a potentially long, costly nation-buiding operation and to enlist as many allies as possible to share the burden.
There is no avoiding nation-building in Iraq. To get at Iraq's weapons of mass destruction we will need to break the regime open, like a walnut, and then rebuild it.
The Bushies seem much mare adept as breaking things than building things. To do nation-building you need to be something of a na・e optimist. I worry that the Bushies are way too cynical for nation-building.
My most knowledgeable Iraqi friend tells me he is confident that morning after any U.S. invasion, U.S, troops would be welcomed by Iraqis, and the regime would fold quickly. It's the morning after the morning after that we have to be prepared for.
In the best case, a 'nice・strongman will emerge from the Iraqi army to preside over a gradual transition to democracy, with American receding into a supporting role. In the worst case, Iraq falls apart, with all its historical internal tensions ・particularly between its long-ruling Sunni minority and its long-frustrated Shiite majority. In that case, George W. Bush will have to
become Iraq's strongman ・the iron fist that holds the country together, gradually redistributes the oil wealth and supervises a much longer transition to democracy.
My Iraqi friend tells me that anyone who tells you he knows which scenario will unfold doesn't know Iraq.
The New York Times