Theories and yet more theories. The only way for the hidden variables in a complex situation beyond the capacity of any human brain to understand is for the US to pull out then stand back and watch what happens.

Bashdar

I think the point about withdrawal leading to civil war is overplayed by the US administration to justify its continued presence there. As I understand it the majority of Iraqis want the US to leave. The problem for them is not Sunni versus Shia versus Kurd, it is the US occupation.

I doubt the US can ever win now. So the options are to watch the US wither and die in Iraq or withdraw. This is Vietnam over again, except that the anti-war movement is much smaller now.

The whole US adventure has been a failure and either result - staying or pulling out - is a defeat for the US.

“Five years and countless political time-bombs later, Iraq remains as contentious as ever.”

There is a significant difference to be contentious to US or internally.

What do you prefer?

The author has given a considerable set out but seems to overlook that at least from Australia’s point of view she is technically still an occupied nation! This is because firstly John Howard had no prerogative powers to authorise Australian troops to invade Iraq, and secondly the Governor-General having failed to publish in the Gazette a DECLARATION OR WAR prior to the invasion neither has since published in the Gazette a DECLARATION OF PEACE and as such we remain to be at war with Iraq (albeit unconstitutionally).
On 19 March 2003 *(the day of the invasion) the High court of Australia for the third time (out of four) refused my application to proceed for mandamus and prohibition. Had it heard the case on constitutional grounds then I had anticipated Australian troops would not have invaded Iraq. With that position unlikely would the USA have proceeded.
With a change of federal government I am pursuing a ROYAL COMMISSION in regard of the invasion into Iraq, as after all we slaughtered so many innocent people in a country we had no business as to invade.
Would we want another country to invade Australia if they do not agree with our politicians?
We have a constitution and as a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” and author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on constitutional and other legal matters I hold it essential that we hold politicians accountable for their disregard of our constitution!
We can imprison a person for failing to pay a parking fine, then surely we should hold accountable politicians and ex-politicians for their participation of an unconstitutional invasion and the mass-murder committed in the process!
See also my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH

The late president Saddam Hussein was a prisoner of war of the Coalition of the Willing, and by this also a prisoner of Australia and as we have abolished the death penalty we never should have allowed him top be hanged!

Many Australians may suffer a death sentence because Australia showed it selectively allows the application of the death penalty and so lack any credibbility to fight to save the lives of Australians.

One of the most thoughtful overview of the present situation in Iraq.
The relatively throw-away line "...the problem was sown with the creation of Iraq as a country long ago." is very significant.

Iraq, together with many of the other countries in Africa and elsewhere, was formed during the colonial system when the simple method was generally applied of "divide and rule". It was nothing new. The Romans did it when the coined the phrase of "dividere at imperare".

In countries like Kenya, Zimbabwe, Cyprus, Palestine, the Congo, etc.,
one section of the community was preferred against the other. When the ruling elite departed, the left behind a system that favoured a "strong man". We should not be entirely surprised by the disarray and conflicts in those countries.

If we consider ex-Yugoslavia (which was cobbled together after World War I), the Serbs controlled all the levers of power. The police, the army, the jurisdiction, the academia,and later the papers and the TV were all under Serb control. The Bosnians or the Kosovars did not have a look in. All the major managerial position were filled by Serbs. When their common enemy, the USSR imploded, each ethnic group wanted a fairer share within their system.

What happened during the colonial system is history. It is no good crying over spilt milk. If there is anyone to blame, it is our own ignorance. We simply did not know the effects of concentrating power within one section of a community.

While it would appear that people are divided along religios lines, what people really care about is when unfair economic advantage is institutionalised.

Can people act on this simple truth? Or does it need a genuine, impartial, and reformed international system to assist in the essential transformation?

Good on ya, Istvan: “While it would appear that people are divided along religios lines, what people really care about is when unfair economic advantage is institutionalised.”

One could feel and say, your Hungarian-originating, communist-era education definitely contributes to logical thinking and reality of world developments, of which Anglo-xenophobia still ruling a British Commonwealth presents own vision of events very much based on “social fitting” to environment.