While I agree that Greg Sheridan was going too far in suggesting that "the rise of the Islamic State (IS) could in no way be linked to the 2003 American invasion of Iraq", I think that the author's thesis is also a bit simplistic. The problem with Sheridan's piece (in my view) was mainly the use of the words "in no way".

The view expressed in the current article is that "many Arabs – and not just the radical ones – see themselves as one nation". Hence "So when an Arab country is attacked the entire Arab Street is outraged" and "Any incursions by the infidel West onto the sacred soils of Islam, and especially Arab Islam, are going to have consequences".

The author's alternative theory therefore is that the advent of IS is one of these consequences of Western intervention in Iraq.

While I take the point, I think many other factors are also at work. Also, while many Arabs may see themselves as one nation, the extent of Arab division and tribalism should not be overlooked.

Absolutely, Bren...

Why would the toppling of the Sunnis in Iraq and their subsequent and systematic stripping of power and resources by the Iranian-backed Shiite government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki have contributed to the spawning of ISIS?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/opinion/sunday/thomas-l-friedman-obamas-strategy-for-fighting-isis-isnt-all-about-us.html

"There will be no self-sustained stability unless those civil wars are ended and a foundation is laid for decent governance and citizenship. Only Arabs and Muslims can do that by ending their sectarian wars and tribal feuds. We keep telling ourselves that the problem is “training,” when the real problem is governance. We spent billions of dollars training Iraqi soldiers who ran away from ISIS’s path — not because they didn’t have proper training, but because they knew that their officers were corrupt hacks who were not appointed on merit and that the filthy Maliki government was unworthy of fighting for. We so underestimate how starved Arabs are, in all these awakenings, for clean, decent governance."

A VERY LONG WAR! Graham, it is music to the ears of the Predatory Capitalists and their brain-dead supporters.

They will be having orgasms of delight to read this headline. What could be better?

Well, I suppose if the U.N. decided that permanent war was a better option. It would give those who make the weapons and the munitions a capacity to dream up a more reliable management plan for the future.

What a mess we humans have made of our world. In Ancient Greece, the vast potential of the human minds was explored as was the artistic and dramatic qualities of many humans. Then these capacities were pushed aside as Rome adopted the 'Invade and Plunder' model which is still with us, thanks to America!

War is a destructive force. It brings out the worst in humans. It brings immense suffering and destruction and hatreds that live for centuries.

The people of the world must reject the war model because now we have nukes and, one day, some psychopath from London or Washington or Moscow is going to use them.

Can't you see the writing is on the wall for us? We are living on the edge of a precipice.

War and nukes must be banned. The warmongers must be confronted and their teeth must be pulled!

To do nothing is condoning human extinction, enabling it!

Make your choice!

My Solution to the Middle East problem.

Seal the Borders let no one out for any reason. All moslems must return to the Middle East immediately. All Western influences must be removed from the Middle East.

When they have sorted their problems out. Then the West might talk to the Middle East but no moslem is allowed to leave the Middle East area to contaminate the West with their Archaic Religion.

Absolutely Agree Poirot; And can only add, your analysis is backed by the Arab Spring Phenomena.
If the Author is saying one thing, then it surely must be, birds of a feather tend to collect together; and or, some of the people can be fooled all of the time!
But particularly, village idiots, who think their personally perceived problems can be solved with a gun; rather than compounded by imbecilic/ whim and caprice of a madman/knuckle dragging Neanderthal, primitive stone age/brainless, moribund violence!
Rhrosty.

The tragedy of the Middle East is that nationalism - the aspiration to bring together all Arab nations under one rule - has always clashed with Islamism - the aspiration to bring all Sunni (or Shia) believers under one rule. The overlap is an illusion.

Each force degenerates into semi-fascist dictatorship, one way or another. But neither force has ever been strong enough to prevail, giving way to discontent, disillusion, and a swing periodically to the other force.

'Community' is usually defined everywhere not just by who is IN, who is 'US', but who is forever OUT, 'THEM'.

So Arab nationalists are opposed to Kurds, Turks, Iranians and any other-non Arabs having any say: they are 'not-community', therefore enemies.

In a similar parochial mind-set, Sunni Muslims are opposed to Shi'ite Muslims, or Yazidis, or Christians (Copts, Assyrians, Chaldeans, etc.) having any power: they are 'not-community', outside the Umma, therefore enemies.

Less brutally, but along the same lines, Shi'ite Muslims are opposed to Sunni Muslims, or Baha'i, or Christians, having any power: they also are 'not-community', outside the fold in one way or another, therefore enemies.

And 'enemies' are not regarded as human, but of the Devil, Shaitan, and therefore not worthy of life, let alone power.

So the Yanks should have been aware that any road to democracy was going to be very long, and very bloody. But I suppose like all of us, they live in hope. Hope tinged somewhat with arrogance.

Joe