I think Bashdar's comments are fairly reasonable, non-sectarian and uncontroversial.

As Iraq was an artificial creation of the West in the 1920s it may always fall apart unless their are strong forces (usually resorting to violence) keeping it together.

Saddam (viciously) performed the unifying function until recently and then the US (etc) took up the job in 2003. Major reasons for the US/Coalition invasion had nothing to do with WMD or terrorism. As I see it the US wished to:

- get rid of Saddam (no surprise) but not replace it with the uncertainties of a slide towards truely democratic or Islamic government. The US wanted (still wants) a controllable regime usually achieved by dictatorship. I think the hardheads in the CIA, State and Defence were/are looking for a strong (secular) Ataturk like leader. The expectation was/is it might happen in the long term (20 years).

- such regime change was meant to ensure the second major objective: steady and predictable access to Iraq's oil production and reserves. Without this there is excessive dependence on Saudi Arabia's ability to influence world oil production levels and pricing.

As the main consumer and developer of the world oil industry the US has a right to ensure steady oil supplies.

There would be little problem if the US's optimistic goals had been achieved through destabilisation of Saddam rather than invasion and with minimal loss of life. But its a mess instead. Too many Iraqi's, other Muslims and Coalition troops have died and Iraq's standard of living is far worse than under Saddam.

The US has recently decided to leave its reconstruction of Iraq's critical infrastructure half finished ($US20+ billion voted out of the civil aid budget). So compared to the Saddam years: far fewer Iraqi's have reliable electrical power; half the oil is flowing; and arguably more Iraqi's are dying in the international effort to keep Iraq together.

Australia's main problem is to avoid being drawn into a massive civil (or regional) war.

Luckily our Government keeps us "safe" by delaying Australia's withdrawal until the civil war :(

Plantagenet
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

The belief of Mr Ismaeel that Iraq is on the way to democracy is optimistic in the extreme. The occupiers of the country, or at least their political leaders have never been paricularly interested in democracy except for public propaganda purposes. The US has always been concerend with influence and control in countries that are within its sphere of interest. Just ask the Latin Americans. The US will seek to establish a regime that serves its interests as Saddam did until he began to act like an independent ruler of an independent state.

Recent reports by Dahr Jamail, for example, indicate that Iraq is, in reality, in disarray politically, economically and socially. Moreover, in behaviour hardly characteristic of a democratic society where freedom of opinion and speech are valued (or should be), Jamail reports on the murder and disapperarance of academics and intellectuals, male or female. Steps in the stifling of dissent perhaps? Just as Bush and Co. would like to do in the US?

Pretty well agree with you both, Elm and Plantagenet,

Why our arrogant Amglophile Alliance hasn't learnt from ME history, particularly our Brits, has got most social science sections of our universities dismayed. Tony Blair as an Oxford graduate, must be regarded by his former tutors as a dead loss. John Howard, also, apparently only studied law. That is why he is so good at using spin to handle a political case. Needs much more than that to handle the present mess in Iraq, however. Maybe political philosophers are right when they say that it is about time the world's Christians got together with the Islamics to share the blame - because taking a real historical view we might say each side is as bad as the other.

What a mess