I am glad that the Baathist regime fell, but now we are seeing why it
and the preceding regimes, like that of Kassem´s between 1958-63,
were so bloody. There´s always some group ready to use violence to
achieve it´s goals; to gain power and to keep it. And they draw others
to a circle of violence, which is ended when some group achieves
dominant position, usually by way of large-scale bloodshed and
backing from foreign powers.

I have to admit, that I don´t think there´s any good way to solve
this mess that would leave everybody happy. One realpolitik solution
would probably be the splitting of Iraq in de facto independent
Kurdish north and Shia dominated central and southern parts. They
could even be democratic. But I think it is very unlikely that the Shiia
and Sunni are able to share power. Even if there´s some joint battle
against the occupation ahead, they would probably afterwards turn
against each other.

There could be decades of civil war ahead. The United States has once
again opened Pandora´s box and seems as bewildered as ever that
their clumsy schemes have fallen apart. The sad thing is, that so has
Iraq. And what emerges from this chaos probably isn´t democratic,
Israeli loving Middle East who sells cheap oil that keeps American voters
happy.

George Bush the First didn´t want to end the Baathist regime because
he felt brought stability to the region. The price of this stability was of
course paid in Iraqi lives. George Bush the Second thought otherwise -
or his advisers, whatever the case - because they are blinded by USA´s
power. Yet the father saw the limits of the power, which usually is seen
as the trademark of a succesful presidency when it comes to foreign
policy. In the end, the United States have far less power in reality
compared to the power it in theory wields. And this they are learning
the hard way. A lesson, which is again paid mostly in Iraqi lives.