This has to be one of the most becoming explanations of the situation in Iraq that I have read. Maybe the author would care to post an explanation for why americans and coalition forces fight as well? I can hardly believe most of the junk I read as it is always highlighted with catchwords and innoculent bigotry.

Sierra Leone People’s Democratic League

PDL

Public Release Statement. 24 March 2008

Subject: “PDL REJECTS CONTINUED US-ZIONIST OCCUPATION OF IRAQ”!

Right from the word go, the Sierra Leone People’s Democratic League (PDL) strongly condemned the brutal invasion of Iraq by the United States Government and its NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) allies, as a fragrant violation of basic rules of international law and the United Nations Charter, and as a criminal act of international gangsterism.

This cynical disregard of international opinion, moral principles and civilised standards is particularly frightening at a time when men and women of goodwill the world over are working tirelessly to ensure that disputes arising from political and ideological differences amongst member-states of the human family are resolved amicably without resorting to war.

Five years since the gruesome invasion and occupation of Iraq, the blood of the innocent Iraqi civilian population, women, children and the elderly continue to flow in all corners of the Arab nation, with no end in sight. We therefore, on behalf of members and supporters of the PDL wish to condemn the use of military terrorism by a group of international neo-cons wishing to impose on the Iraqi people and the world their evil designs and tastes. Attempts by the aggressor US Government to impose a Zionist enclave on Iraq runs at variance with Arab culture, tradition and literature, and contrary to moral principles and the wish and aspirations of Iraq. We therefore, again wish to register our grievances against the continued occupation of Iraq and the terror tactics applied in that country by the US which constantly reproaches others terrorism.

It is our honest opinion that the unending US led military gangsterism on Iraq as painful as it is, shows that capitalism and human dignity are totally incompatible. Condemned by the free people of the world, we opined that the unjust, criminal, unwarranted, unmandated, unwanted and brutal occupation Iraq is a clear sign of weakness of the US empire, and contains dangerous threat to peace, security, stability, peaceful co-existence and to the future of humanity.

As the world marks the fifth anniversary of the US-Zionist criminal war against the people of Iraq with protest marches and condemnations, we ask this unavoidable question what the United Nations with its headquarters on the US soil in New York will do to stop the holocaust tragedy in Iraq. The United Nations has so far shows deaf ears, blind eyes and remains silent. Will the world body continue to side with the military power of the US-Zionist terrorism and thus render itself no longer relevant for the purposes it was created after the demise of the League of Nations in 1945, or will it take the chance now to defend humankind which its pretends to save and succeeding generations from the scourge of wars?

We ask the United Nations on which side of Iraq it belongs, either on the US-Zionist military terrorism or human dignity? Unless the world body reverses its special hatreds for the Arab and other oppressed races on earth to express it support for the Iraqi people’s resistance against the brutal occupation of their only Allah-given land on earth, as the presence of US-Zionist forces on the Arab territories constitute serious attacks on human dignity. It is also a deliberate insult to the conscience of the international community, and which must not be condoned by the United Nations. The US-Zionist enclave has reaffirmed that its morality does not go beyond military terrorism, political assassination, deceptions, oppression and manipulation of international instruments to dehumanise humankind.

As a demonstration of solidarity, we, of the PDL salute the Iraqi people in their legitimate campaign to end the brutal occupation of their country. We call upon civilised institutions all over the world to manifest solidarity with the people of Iraq. We demand the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the US-Zionist forces of terror from all parts of the Arab nation, including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, etc. We demand also total respect for the sovereignty of Iraq.

No statement on the current situation in Iraq is complete if the people of America are not made to wake from the slumber to check the activities of their leaders. For this, we urge the American people to elect leaders (and not neo-cons) of proven integrity, honesty and morality, and leaders who would extend their hands to a policy of sincere co-existence that will ensure peace, stability, freedom and prosperity to a world community that is complete tired of oppression, military terrorism, slavery, wars and race hatreds.

The above appeal goes also urgent and joint session of the Organisation of Islamic States and the League of Arab States to come out with concrete plan of action, which should include a call for an emergency Session of the United Nations General Assembly, where the US and its allies have no veto power so that all nations of the world can understand everything about the whole truth surrounding the US-Zionist criminal wars against the Arab race, and to react to the occupation of Iraq. The international civilised community should not ignore the lesson and implications of this grave hour.

Sender:

Bockarie Kai Kai

PDL Secretary for Information and Mass Mobilisation.

For and on behalf of members and supporters of PDL at home and the diaspora.

David Ignatius, PostGlobal: "... "son of Mandela," rather than "son of Saddam"... people of that stature are rare indeed in history, and it is unwise to premise a strategy on the expectation that they will arrive on the scene."

There have always been enough wisemen for this world. Not in full view, but withdrawn. Typical men and women who lived "in this world" but were not "of this world".

For thousands of years, people who have wanted to find those wise people have found them. Those in power who wanted to let wise people exercise power always found such people.

Hence, the problem is not whether wise people exist. Neither is it whether one can find them or not. The problem is that those who exercise (or abuse!) power do not wish to see wise people act in their stead. They would therefore do anything to ensure the wise are kept as far away as possible from the realm of power.

Ordinary boys and girls have such a passion for all those who look like "strong leaders", regardless of whether they are wearing a borrowed uniform or not!...

I think we need to go back to the days where black ops took care of things. Forget about being overt and sending our boys over to places like Iraq. We need to fund the side that makes most sense to us at the time and if they turn on us just fund there enemies. For example, I think we should fund the Sunni side in Iraq and let them just blow the behiggies out of the Iranian influanced Shi'ites until Iran is ready to crack. Hopefully Iran will do something stupid like attack one of our ships so we can directly respond and blow up thier entire navy. I think we should let the old boys from black ops go into Iran and just start smacking them around. The entire Arab world hates Iran and they will be happy to sit back and pretend nothing is happenning. We are going to have to take sides and the most reasonable are the Sunnis. It is time to quietly and covertly stick it up Irans butthole. Excuse my french:)

Thank you, Mr. Ignatius.

I thoroughly agree with you about "son of Mandela". Could that, for a start, be Marwan Barghouti for the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians? We could follow that up with moderate Iranians (Mohammad Khatami, Mr. Gandji, etc) working with enlightened Americans (your esteemed self as well as President Carter, Zbignew Breznisky, John Murtha, etc.) getting the 15 British seamen released by Iran as a fist gesture followed up by a move by the West to agree on a framework to release Iran's frozen assets (the UK released the assets of the Mujahideen Khalq), followed by a temporary freezing by Iran of enrichment, followed by cooperation to bring stability to Iraq, followed by an internationally-agreed aid package for Iraq's reconstruction (Saudi Arabia to contribute most as proof of Muslim solidarity being at least as good as human solidarity?

The emergence of a Mandela, a son of Mandela, an Antar (Le Cid, according to Corneille), a son of Antar,a Marwan Barghouti is a process rather than an instantaneous event.

Thank you for giving me the oportunity to discuss with as eminent a person as yourself.

To Mr. Malleck in Canada: It's not that I think Iraq is incapable of the kind of sectarian reconciliation that was seen in South Africa and India. My question is how outside powers can facilitate that process, if at all. Maybe what we should be talking about is "son of Mandela," rather than "son of Saddam." But people of that stature are rare indeed in history, and it is unwise to premise a strategy on the expectation that they will arrive on the scene.

Jozevz:
You have too much free time.

Anju Chandel,

I have posted the text below under the comment by Mr. Vamos.

May I also invite you to read my post above about
the multi-disciplinary scientific (evolutionary biology, Game Theory, etc.) basis of morality. You might also like to read an article published in New York Times yesterday titled SCIENTIST FINDS THE BEGINNINGS OF MORALITY IN PRIMATE BEHAVIOR By Nicholas Wade.

POSTING UNDER THE VAMOS COMMENT

I shall certainly try to read Amartya Sen's article on "Identity and Violence : The Illusion of Destiny", just as I have read many, many of his works including "Social Choice and Individual Values" and his more mathematical works.

I am myself of Indian origin and have travelled all over the world (more than 30 countries, having been an international civil servant in no less than 3 international organisations). Being a person who tries with all his might to be a good Muslim (which requires me to also be a good Christian, Hindu, Jew, Buddhist because, as the Holy Quran says, every people and every society has received The Message from God), I deplore what happened in Gujrat, the province from which my father originates; but that does not negate what you claim about India being an example of multi-cultural harmony.

May I invite you, in turn, to read the article "The Six Burdens of Sanity" , a lecture delivered by Dr Salman Akhtar at the inauguration of Delhi University's Centre for Psychoanalytic Studies in 2006? Dr Akhtar is lecturer at Harvard Medical School, professor of psychiatry at Jefferson Medical College and training analyst at the Philadelphia Psychoanalytis Institute. The article treats of schizophrenia/terrorism, identity and sanity, both individual and collective

Mr. Rami, I am sure you would be aware about India being the most diversified yet unified nation on this earth with peaceful and prosperous co-existence of mulitple religions, regions (where language changes completely after a few hundred kilometers), ethnicity, caste, color, creed, class, curture, coutoure, cousine, etc. and all this in spite of its own fair share of foreign rules till as recent as 60 years ago. The world and Iraq in particular need to learn from this "Indian adventure" and learn to respect and accept and make their own land 'safe for diversity'...India: a safe, secure and secular democracy!

The UN's help should be sought in this regard as it is so much similar to India in its constitution: of being singular yet remaining plural at its core.

Mohamed MALLECK, Swift Current, Canada:

Sir: Comments on your posting to me.

I shall give you reasons why I think China, Russia, Japan possibly India and S. Korea would be willing to finance the rebuilding of Iraq :

1., Russia wants to be on the good side of Muslims, for she is surrounded by basicly Muslim ex SSR-s and Iran on the South. Second, being a major supplier of Oil Gas it is to Russia's advantage to play ball with other major suppliers. Finally to establish a multi-polar world, Russia tries to counterbalance the USA [with Chinese co-operation], and displacing the USA in the ME [excluding Israel] would greatly assist this measure.

2., China, Japan, As an offer to help rebuild Iraq, these two countries might be able to persuade the INDEPENDET IRAQI GOVERNMENT [which will repeal the USA/UK backed/written OIL law - to assure sovereignity] to grant China and Japan LONG TERM oil/gas contracts based on the international oil price of the day [as the price develops over the years] with the internationally acceptable royalty to IRaq [as per Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Chad, and other similar suppliers]. As both of these nations are flush with $, and have long term need of assured oil supply, sucha situation might be win-win for Iraq and China/Japan.

3., India/South Korea and othe nations of Asia which need to import oil/gas - might wish to contribute to the rebuilding for the same reason as China/Japan - even though they do not have loose cash in large quantities. It is notable that China, India South Korea and Japan are technologically advanced [with China having oil/gas ezploration production history of almost 1000 years] thus can help Iraq in many ways.

4., The USA/UK/ coalition of the willing - their name is MUD, they do not have future in Iraq. The USA is also broke.

5., Iran/Saudi Arabia - they will cooperate to rebuild IRaq for that insures peace for themselves, and gets rid of tensions within their own countries. Their help will be partially political, partially religious basis, and partially with cash. Saudia Arabia has it now, and IRan will get lots from China, India, etc from the projects/agreements for exploration/extraction and pipelines presently under discussion.

I trust, Sir, that you can see the logic of my argument.

The battle between Sunnis and Shiites is a mirror of the battle between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. But it finds comparison in many other situations e.g the Tutsis and the Hutus in Rwanda.
Relationships between individuals and groups involve some element of domiance or subservience. The keyphrase in the Northern Ireland peace process was "parity of esteem". It is not a religious war in any way. But maybe if religion defines the group, it is more subtle than that. It is about your standing in the community, your access to jobs, services and a meaningful life for you and your family.
Violence will end in Iraq when all groups and genders have "parity of esteem".

One lesson from history might shed some light here. During the emergence of the American democracy, the only people who held fast to their tribal heritage were either killed or rounded up and put on reservations. Much of Iraq was organized around tribal-like sub-groups under Sadaam's heel. Jeffersonian democracy is NOT the right next step for all countries/cultures.

On SON OF SADAAM: The future of Iraq is in plain site but nobody seems ready to accept it. We can only hope that Sadar is a more humame dictator than was Sadaam. He is the only one with both the resources(Mati Army sp?) and the long-term commitment in Iraq. And we'll see him assume control when this so-called 'surge' spends itself. This surge increased US troop level in Iraq by about 15%. That's going from, say, 50% to 57% of the required security force. That's "STAY THE COURSE - ON SWEET-AND-LOW".

Is it possible that Democracies go to war to divert attention from problems at home.
But the bigger problem is if the war is an unjust war/ an illegal war (per Kofi Annan), the problem gets worse. Remember Viet Nam. The agony of those traumatised warriors coming back will haunt us for decades.
Saddam may have been a valid target. But the people of Iraq were not the target.
I still believe that an old time Chicago gangster would have done a better job(taking out SADDAM).
Or we could have hired a Sicilian.
Where have all those gangsters gone!

Salamon, David Ignatius,

I want to answer both of you.

First, Salamon. I totally agree with everything you say, but with some nuance. For example, you write:

It is possible that upon an announcement that the USA [and her proxies] will depart Iraq, and with the help of the boardering states that there could be a consessus built in Iraq with the help of the two larger powers, Saudi Arabia and Iran, to defuse the civil war and with the cooperation of rich countries [oil exporters, China, Japan and Russia] the infrastructure of Iraq could be largely rebuilt in a few years.

Why, apart from apprehension that the chaos in Iraq will spill over, should Iran and Saudi Arabia bother to go through all the trouble of fixing what the US/UK have broken. Why should China, Japan, Russia [and maybe my country, India] use their hard -earned wealth to bail out the US/UK? Does international law compel them to pay war reparations the way Iraq was made to pay war reparations to Kuwait? Not only should US/UK be made to pay war reparations, but their leaders, Bush and B;air should be dragged in front of the International Criminal Court and made to face war crimes charges. Maybe David Ignatius could also consider chipping-in, voluntarily, to the war reparations.

Next to David Ignatius. He asks Rami a number of pertinent questions starting with : So, if those are the complex factors that led to the rise of sectarian strife, what are the conditions that would lead to its cessation?

The first condition is for the US/UK/Australia to get out. Much of the violence will persist for some time, but knowing that they will have to live with each other and unlike the Americans and Brits have nowhere else to go, the Iraqi factions will make peace with each other the way other victims of colonialism and imperialism have done in the past and continue to do today. Shall I tell Mr. Ignatius about Malaysia, Egypt, India, South Africa, Senegal and countless others? The second condition is to leave the work of the reconstruction of Iraq in the hands of brotherly Muslim countries who have a batural sense of solidarity that has been hardwired in their brains over long centuries (see the comments of the first commentator). We will then not have the corruption of Halliburton, Bechtel etc to spoil the effort. Third, when the Iraqis revise the oil resource privatisation law and the oil revenue sharing law, do not threaten re-invasion from bases that would have been newly-established in neighbouring complicit countries.

Honestly, Mr Ignatius, given the recent experience of South Africa and the earlier experience of India, do you beleive that the Iraqis cannot hack it?

The notion of the Son of Sadam can not be reached, for there is no group strong enough to survive as an active puppet of the USA [and the CIA has no student stashed away, such as Mr. Hussein or Bin Laden - both the products of CIA training, arming, and information providing].

It is debatable if the International Community [with or without the UN] could "peace keep" without the appearance of supplementing the invadors [aside from the above the USA still has too many vassals in the words of mr. Brezinski to assure that the "PEACE KEEPRES would not be actually USA PROXIES]. Never mind the political will anywhere to send only sons to the quagmire of IRaq.

It is possible that upon an announcement that the USA [and her proxies] will depart Iraq, and with the help of the boardering states that there could be a consessus built in Iraq with the help of the two larger powers, Saudi Arabia and Iran, to defuse the civil war and with the cooperation of rich countries [oil exporters, China, Japan and Russia] the infrastructure of Iraq could be largely rebuilt in a few years. There is no hope if the USA just transfers its 150 000 mercanaries and 140 000 armed forces just outside IRaq, for the presumption that the USA may reinvade would create great insecurity - where only the clan and family protection means anything - thus no end of civil war.

Were the invasion and subsequent destruction of civil society and infrastructure not been so overwhelming, there might be still role to play for the USA. However the nation is in physical shambles with death toll of over 500 000 at least, a dispora of 2-4 000 000 [internal external] So there is hardly any family, any clan which has not suffered personally due to USA military action and or military ommission. With such a large % against the USA/UK, these two powers have to go.

I feel sorry for Mr. Igantius, for finally he realized that his overt encouragement for the invasion played out as many prognosticated: RESULT IS A FAILED STATE with no clear resolution possible with USA involvement. It is sad that Mr. Ignatius with the help of other editiors coulmnists of WP with similar thoughts by most major papers' editorial policy so greatly misled the USA PUBLIC, and has created the greatest blood letting since Vietnam. These Editors, Columnists, Think-tank members all lived in a dream world, where an invasion of Grenada or Panama could be called "qualified success" , thus permitting these dreamers to predict "success" Mission Accomplished in IRaq.

Unfortunately, the price for this fiasco is paid by Iraqis, by poorer countries receivingg the influx of refugees [Jordan, Syria] and the children of the next USA Generation who will pay both the financial cost of this war and the political moral aspects of the USA's decline as a major power for the good of societies in general.

all these words and treasure spend and all these killings just so western sponsored oil companies get their 30 year contracts!
shame on you.

Mr. Khouri, I agree that you miss one fundamental point of the conflict, one that is not particularly recent: the formation of these different religious identities-- the claim for some to be the "chosen ones of God". This is a claim repeated over and over again, in many parts of the world, and often with tragic consequences. I don't think this is innate in human nature (one can see many exceptions), but I do think at times that it may stem from monotheism-- from the belief that there is one god, one religion, one way of being "pure." Overlap this with ideas about ethnicity, and it's a recipe for disaster. If people were to stop believing in "one path to heaven", then a good deal of the divisiveness between people might just fade. I often think one of the reasons that Northern Ireland is healing is that people are less and less believing in a particular religious doctrine. If it worked there, it could work elsewhere.

I am not convinced by he Sunni-Shia divide argument, nor the artificial-nation-state- boundary/tribal-divisions argument. Before 1979, in spite of tribal divisions there was a common national identity and a sense of belonging to the wider Muslim community within a healthy secular mind-set. This is true not just in Iraq but also in Jordan,Egypt, Tunisia, Iran, the latter two being countries where, as a Hanafi Sunni Muslim originating from India, I have lived and developed excellent friendships with all 'tribal groups' and social classes.

Yes, the Baathists and the Satanic American invasion are to blame. But then even the post-1979 Baathist abuses were supported by the CIA and Donald Rumsfeld.

Let the Iraqi people resolve their very human differences the way I resolve differences of opinion that I have with my wife, my children, my brother, my colleagues.

People who kill in the name of god are going to whatever hell they believe in.

Muslims who kill muslims are going to their hell...one far worse than the hell they create on earth.

Jews who kill muslims are going to the lowest places in the afterlife

Neo-conservative Christians who back the pre-emptive killing of others are on a fast track to hell.

Killers go to hell.

"...a "Son of Saddam" might be the solution..."?

How ironical! President Saddam Hussein HAD sons. Is it that the agressors/occupiers did not think about them soon enough? So we insisted on regime change to put in its place a "Son of Saddam"? What better proof can there be that the intention of the US has been exclusively to ensure that once again, a puppet was at the helm, no matter whether he be a tyrant or not, and regardless of any form of so-called "democracy" for the people.

Lies and deception can only lead to such laughable contradictions...

No doubt Mr. Khouri knows his subject; still, I think for a full explanation of the fighting in Iraq (or elsewhere in the Middle East), one would have to add Saul Singer's comment: it did start with Cain and Abel, with jealousy, and the feeling of being taken advantage of. Group solidarity -- whether ethnic, religious, or any other affiliation that confers "identity" -- by necessity needs the (hostile) "Other". The Preamble of the UNESCO Charter states wisely that "wars begin in the minds of men", and it's perhaps useful to remember that this was written just after World War II. We are appalled by the carnage in Iraq nowadays, but, within living memory, the Europeans demonstrated that it may take two world wars and millions and millions of dead to get over the urge to settle conflicts through war. Europe has learnt pacifism the hard way, and while "the West" nowadays tends to see history in terms of "victims" and "perpetrators", for the longest time, history was interpreted in terms of "victors" and "vanquished". Depressingly enough, where I live -- in the Middle East -- that is still the case: around here, there are noble "martyrs" and glorious "jihad", honor killings are honorable, and resistance and revenge is heroic.
David Ignatius's question whether a "Son of Saddam" might be the solution has recently become a widely discussed subject and was e.g. the subject of one of the recent BBC Doha Debates, where the audience rejected this as a solution. However, we have to admit that we are sort of grateful that there is a Musharaf and a Mubarak, are we not? But let's remember that we got rid of Saddam for a reason, and while Musharaf may seem a strongman to our liking, Kim Il Jong is not, and Hitler was not, etc. The bottom line, I'm afraid, is, that George Bush and the much maligned neocons got one thing right: the mess we have in the Middle East -- whether it's Iraq, Gaza/Palestine or any of the other powder kegs -- is caused by a deficit of democracy; unfortunately, democracy is not just voting, and it will take a bloody long time to build the necessary democratic "infrastructure" in the Middle East.

Buchanan;

Your post was one of the most humorous ones I have seen in quiet awhile. I think your idea has merit though. Only one problem I see with it though. How could we keep them from exporting their lust for killing to over here?

SARA: You have good INSIGHT & PATTERN RECOGNITION abilitys. Wow. Democrats have their time during the so-called signs or moments of the times. And Republicans get there day to dictate at the house holds Diner table (where the buck most likely stops). So, which is best for the occasion: Vanilla or Chocolate. Thank G-d for Choices especially in a Democracy like ours. The richest, kindest and smartest Nation (a Miracle ITSELF) not just here on Space-Ship Mother-Earth but beyond APOLLO and this Grand-Pa Milkyway Galaxy et al. Life really is beautifull my beautuful Sister n Handsome Brothers! SHOLOM to that!

Alexi De Tocqueville wrote that the success of democracy depends upon political parties sometimes winning and sometimes losing. In the United States sometimes the Democrats win sometimes Republicans win.

When political parties are religiously or ethnically affliated and voting always occurs on ethno-religious lines minorities have very little chance of winning elections or influencing public policy. In such instances democracy can become just as oppressive as dictatorships, and minority groups often refuse to accept the legitimacy of the government. In Iraq which has a Shi'ite majority Sunni's fear they will become politically irrelevant. The struggle is as much political as it is religious.

While nobody wants to admit this, perhaps democracy is the cause of the civil war in Iraq not the solution. I believe the violence could end in two ways. 1) Wide spread ethnic cleansing to rid the country of minorities, thereby making democracy feasible or 2) as David Ignatius suggested the rise of another non-sectarian strong man.

Will you provide some kind of back up for that "lust for oil" comment, or are you nothing but a moronic mantra-chanter? If control of oil was what they were after, they missed the mark. The UN Oil For Food magnates had that bag tied up tighter than a noose BEFORE Saddam was toppled. If control was the name of the game, it would have been far easier to manage with an intact Iraq under a well heeled dictator, so these retarded arguments about Bush wanting control of Iraq's oil is just beyond comprehension.

Please try again.

Agree with Mr. Khouri in most respects and thank him for a thoughtful commentary. It is easy to say that the war is a reckless U.S.-led war that removed the state structures that had held the place together -- with all its faults -- allowing ethnic and religious identities to rise to the fore. Saddam was pretty reckless too. It is early to deem this effort a total failure. Something good may come out of this beyond the removal of a brutal dictator who while keeping suicide bombers off the streets was busy murdering thousands and stealing everything in site. I don't know if things could really be called better back then when the whole region was threatened by a bully who claimed he had WMD. The world was being held hostage to a punk dictator who routinely tortured his citizens. The US and world media could care less then but the death and destruction was great back then and there was no hope. The hope now is that in the end what we are seeing are the birth pains of something better than Saddam.

Choice. It is barely worth a nearly silent scoff.
The structural powers that have been unleashed by the lust for oil have left me with less choice than my fathers, unless you count cable channels, and i live in the u.s.

If the goliath of american military power, truly more awesome than the Gods of old, were occupying my country (ironic that they're not, since i'm an american, but we don't have much oil)what choices would i have. better yet, to paraphrase Tina Turner, 'what the hell does choice have to do with it.

The blood is on bush's hands, he is just tring to deny it by avoiding the inevidable. He finally got his immiment threat.

Why bother stopping it? The sectarian violence in Iraq has its uses. Unleashed with sufficient lack of control you can tie up and expend the resources of a dozen different Middle Eastern headache groups and cull the herd. Even after the fighting dies down, the land grab in the vaccuum left by the dead will unleash a second wave of violence that will tie them down further.

Iraqis are free to choose their own destiny. They've chosen fratricidal oblivion. I see no reason not to be respectful of their choice.

The next question, and really the only one at this stage, is how to reverse the situation so that it won't recur. What the United States has refused to do so far is involve the international community in Iraq. This needn't mean UN engagement, necessarily, although it's worth pointing out that the UN is increasing its activities in the area of post-conflict recovery, and preventing relapses into conflict, through its relatively new Peacebuilding Commission. Even if we've not reached the post-conflict stage, planning might concentrate there more than it has. At the moment, the administration's goal seems mainly, if not only, to defeat the insurgency and quell the sectarian strife. The likelihood is that this will never be done entirely, or, at least, in the foreseeable future. Putting a different emphasis on the mission, even when the promotion of democracy is brought into the picture, could possibly allow the United States to "finish the job" and achieve "victory" in a considerably more constructive way than has been done, or is envisioned. I question whether the United States truly has this capability, however, such have been the problems arising from this war, the bulk of which were foreseeable. Should the United Nations agree to play the kind of role that I suggest, backed by a UN emergency force (or peacekeeping force), much as in post-Suez Egypt, the United States woud continue to have a voice in Iraq through the Security Council. So not all would be forsaken, whereas a costly failure seems almost certain to occur, and rather soon, that is, before the end of President Bush's second term, unless a "saving" strategy is adopted in the meantime.

The next question, and really the only one at this stage, is how to reverse the situation so that it won't recur. What the United States has refused to do so far is involve the international community in Iraq. This needn't mean UN engagement, necessarily, although it's worth pointing out that the UN is increasing its activities in the area of post-conflict recovery, and preventing relapses into conflict, through its relatively new Peacebuilding Commission. Even if we've not reached the post-conflict stage, planning might concentrate there more than it has. At the moment, the administration's goal seems mainly, if not only, to defeat the insurgency and quell the sectarian strife. The likelihood is that this will never be done entirely, or, at least, in the foreseeable future. Putting a different emphasis on the mission, even when the promotion of democracy is brought into the picture, could possibly allow the United States to "finish the job" and achieve "victory" in a considerably more constructive way than has been done, or is envisioned. I question whether the United States truly has this capability, however, such have been the problems arising from this war, the bulk of which were foreseeable. Should the United Nations agree to play the kind of role that I suggest, backed by a UN emergency force (or peacekeeping force), much as in post-Suez Egypt, the United States woud continue to have a voice in Iraq through the Security Council. So not all would be forsaken, whereas, at the moment, a costly failure seems almost certain to occur, and rather soon, that is, before the end of President Bush's second term, unless a "saving" strategy is adopted in the meantime.

So, if those are the complex factors that led to the rise of sectarian strife, what are the conditions that would lead to its cessation? I would love to know your thoughts on that, Rami. What would an Iraq in a condition of ethnic harmony look like? Would one side have won the sectarian civil war and established its dominance at the point of a gun? Would a non-sectarian strong man, let's call him "Son of Saddam" arise and suppress the ethnic violence? Would mothers arise, as in northern Ireland, demanding a halt to the killing? Would democracy teach people, over a long time, the art of coexistence? What would it look like?