Agreed… and still, this sectarian war could be somehow prevented with a proper management of the post-war process… but it looks like it’s been a too long time since Eisenhower… americans forgot how to prepare smthg deeper than a military operation. Neither the occupation nor the management of the transition to a supposedly democratic process was planned in any way, and those who could have fixed a guideline for that transition failed strepitously… The fact that iraqis had ethnic or sectarian confrontations was smthg well known in advance… but this fact was simply left at the bottom of the task management list.
I laud the author in The Independent for at least attempting to escape the obsessive eurocentrism of the Iraq war:
The opponents of the Iraq war often claim that the invasion caused the bloody sectarian war that erupted between Iraq’s Sunni and Shia. This is far from the truth.
While it is indisputable that the failure of US post-conflict management in Iraq contributed to the disarray and violence that followed the toppling of the regime in April 2003, the US, her allies and the invasion itself, cannot be blamed for the ethnic and sectarian divisions that exist in Iraq.
Iraq has for long been a divided nation; it has been a state since it was created in 1921 after World War I in search of a united nation but which, to this day, remains divided along ethnic and sectarian boundaries.
Well, that’s true. But I’m very uncomfortable with Alaaldin’s dismissal…
View original post 521 more words
Al-Must'arib (the vocational Mossarab) 
Thank you for the reblog and the comment – I agree that there’s definitely hope for the postwar situation. Maliki shouldn’t be able to stand for a third term I believe? That would be promising.
Time should work in fixing things much better than most people thinks, in my opinion …or my intuition, better said… but that doesn’t sell papers, as we know.
So it’s always better to keep the mess going on.
Regarding Al-Malikki… well…. it should depend on…. elections?
Really… it may sound a bit naive or… irreflexive … or crazy or … but after all the crap that happened in Iraq, I can guess that daily life and reality will impose some logic. If we get back in time, most of mess inside middle east was the creation of nations based in a map design between Mr. Sikes and Mr. Picot, not considering ethnical, religious or historical differences as relevant, and just distributing influential areas related to their resources and the profit they would offer. So civilised… now we find shiite and sunni keeping the fight they have had for the last 15 centuries and trying to live under the same flags in too many places, while sunni rule expands and becomes more and more intolerant…
Then we got Iran watching how Hamas is loosing support among Palestinians, while Assad becomes worlwide impopular and hard to justify, and Hizbullah tries to make mutism a political strategy, trying to find a way forward… too many interesting actors in an unconventional scenario, uh?… muslims start fighting each other all over the ummah and inestability grows under Russia and China’s south and west while US displaces their attention to the Pacific area?…
Deffo I loved RISK… and Hearts Of Iron!*
(*) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearts_of_Iron