<p>It’s pretentious in that it’s, to borrow from St. Hudson, “armchair” activism. I mean, I’m a debater (hell, my conflict essay was on debating and I’ve spent over $1000 on it this year) but the medium of communication…bothers me? I can’t explain it.</p>
<p>Anyway, on Iraq, from my (Sunni) viewpoint:</p>
<p>Both sects have been hostile towards each other for a long time. Even outside Iraq, there’s a lot of tension. For example, Iran is basically the only other predominantly Shiite nation, and it’s essentially ostracized by the rest of the Middle East. Despite fears of the “Arab world” having a bomb, the Iranians are an entirely different ethnic group and are further separated by religious sectarianism.</p>
<p>I think that it’s fundamental to understand that this is a deep-rooted issue. I don’t support the US invasion of Iraq, but the resulting quagmire isn’t entirely because of the US rather than being because of the fall of Saddam Hussein (subtle difference?). Despite being a brutal dictator, he acted as a stabilizing force within the nation, to a certain degree. As a Sunni, he guaranteed protection for the minority within that state. With his downfall and the establishment of a free democracy, there’s HUGE room for, as John Stuart Mill would put it, the “tyranny of the majority”. Now, no Sunni is going to want to be persecuted by his/her enemy, so there comes this whole issue of violence between groups.</p>
<p>The issue of partitioning is touchy, but probably the best course of action. The fundamental component of a nation is the right to self determination and the ability to govern as a group chooses. So in Iraq there are basically three distinct groups. Who are geographically separated. Who hate each other. Because a lot of the conflict today boils down to a power struggle, granting each group autonomy is really fulfilling their independent desires.</p>
<p>What’s tricky, again, about the subject is what the independent states, or even a democratized but unified Iraq would be like. It’s entirely plausible that through a perfectly fair election an extremist government would come to power (Palestine). This undermines the entire objective of the US occupation, and clearly they wouldn’t want this to happen.</p>
<p>The entire thing is tricky, but when I look to situations such as Sri Lanka where basically the EXACT SAME situation is playing out and has been doing so for decades, it’s clear that allowing Iraq to degenerate into civil war won’t provide solutions that act in the better interest of any nation.</p>