"Disturbing Similarities: Iraq in 2006 and 2014" Topic

"It wasn't long ago when the streets of Baghdad, an historical center of Arab history, culture and politics, were literally running red with blood. Back in 2006, when the war in Iraq was at its worst and dozens of American soldiers were dying every month, the residents of Baghdad were experiencing their most devastating period of violence since the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. Except, rather than two nations shooting at each other, the violence was Iraqi-on-Iraqi. Or, more accurately, Sunni-on-Shia and Shia-on-Sunni.

As Meghan O'Sullivan, the point-person for Iraq on George W. Bush's National Security Council, said years later in a PBS documentary about the war, Baghdad in 2006 was "hell." Dozens of young Sunni men were found on the side of the road, butchered to death with their skulls crushed, every day. Suicide bombings and car bombings from ISIL's parent organization, Al Qaeda in Iraq, would kill hundreds of people in Baghdad in virtually every corner of the city: restaurants, cafes, mosques, markets and traffic circles were all targeted. Shia neighborhoods in Baghdad, like Sadr City in the northeast and Shaab to the north, would be purposely targeted by Al Qaeda to inflict massive carnage on the Shia population. Shia militias, often with the blessing or acquiescence of the Iraqi army and national police, would retaliate by rounding up random Sunnis and executing them in the most brutal ways imaginable.

One would think that seven years later, all of that sectarian hatred and animosity would be either subsided to a significant degree or gone from the city entirely. Baghdad used to be a cosmopolitan city, after all—a microcosm of the many sectarian and ethnic communities that make up Iraq's population. The rise of the Islamic State, a minimum American presence, a callous central government and a hollowed out Iraqi army, however, have all combined to produce a nearly identical picture of what Iraq was like in 2006…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Not really.

Rumor has it they've been fighting for 1,400 years or so, and I expect that will continue for another 1,000+.

You need to expand the timeline.
We went in with "Stormin Normin" back in 1990 and Baghdad was bad then.

The mess in the region has been going on and on and on … And regardless of the Wests actions … it mostly rests in the locals' predilections, etc. …

The problem with ANYBODY trying to "solve" the Middle east is that the policy wonks had more important things to study in college than History. They think that all problems can be solved.
They are up against people who have had the same grudges for 1400+ years. And they DO know their history. Very well. Well, at least THEIR version of it. Nobody else's version matters.
What hubris leads them to believe that they can do "nation building"? Its the belief that since THEY think that those ancient beliefs are silly, that reason will convince the natives. They still believe that since they can predict eclipses…

As the guy on the radio in the afternoon says, for most people, history starts the year they were born.

I think we are now learning that there's a reason those ruthless dictators are/were in charge, and why they are that way.

Appears to me they may be better in some cases, than the alternative, which is why we haven't taken more forceful action against Assad, I suspect. They provide a certain level of stability, and seem to have fewer deaths, and less unrest under their tenure.

Of course, there are still a lot of issues with them being in power, but………

Agree with you my friend.
It's sad, but true.

Fortunately, that has not continued in Latin American countries. (well… mostly of them!).

Amicalement
Armand

As some have said, you can't solve the problems of the Mid East … it is the problem …