From whom to save Iraq?

Everything that happens today in Iraq and Syria, from the inside looks completely different than outside. And this is a tremendous trouble. The outside world sees the case like this: the fanatics-Islamists took advantage of internal conflicts and chaos in these two countries in order to arrange a fundamentalist international on this territory. Call there all extremists of the Muslim world.

There are reports that several hundred volunteers arrived from one Chechnya to this army, and the red-haired native of the Pankisian gorge Omar al-Shishani, aka Tarkhan BatiRashvili, has recently become one of the leaders of the Caliphate’s armed forces, and, according to some information, and completely commander in chief. But in the ranks of this army there are Uzbeks and Tatars, and even, it seems, Russian -facing Russian ... not to mention hundreds of British, French, Australian Muslims. Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi (now Caliph Ibrahim) in his video message, which appeared on the Internet, not only declared himself the head of the Caliphate, to whom all Muslims on Earth are obliged to obey, but also declared claims to world domination.

Of course, Islamic fanatics, of course, will capture neither Rome nor Paris with New York, but they can create a base in Iraq to unleash a world war of terrorist acts

So, for the outside world, this is a clear, obvious threat. Of course, these fanatics, of course, will capture neither Rome nor Paris with New York, but they can create a base in Iraq to unleash a world war of terrorist acts. And at the same time, to complicate to the limit, it is possible to spoil for a long time, inter -communal relations in Western countries. That is why the United States is reluctant, but they provide assistance to the government in Baghdad - according to the principle of the smaller of evils.

However, ordinary Iraqis, and many other Muslims, the situation is perceived in a completely different way. They look at the position only at one angle-the Sunni-Shiite conflict. Who is on whose side? Yeah, the Americans, which means for Shiites and, accordingly, against the Sunnis. Al-Baghdadi, by the way, is a faithful student and a follower of Abu Musab Az-Zarkaui killed by the Americans, who called the Shiites “snakes” and taught that they can in no case be considered Muslims that they are more dangerous enemies of the faithful than Christians and Jews. This is a long -standing story dating back to the seventh century, but in much closer times, Saddam Hussein started a war with Iran, thinking not only and not so much about his regional hegemony and the opportunity to grab the Ahvaz rich in oil.

First of all, Saddam sought to neutralize the existential threat emanating from the radical Shiite revolutionaries who came to power in Tehran. Like the defender of the Sunnis, he, reluctantly, was reluctantly helped by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries. And the United States, with all the aversion to his regime, Saddam was also ready to secretly support. Not because they deeply understood the difference between Shiites and Sunnis, but on the principle of "the enemy of my enemy ..." and then Iran looked the main enemy. And they supported ...

Further events once again showed the fatal shortsightedness of this principle. Having received American aid in Afghanistan, the Islamists created the death enemy of America-Al-Qaeda. According to the same model, Saddam turned into both the Americans and the Saudis with a curse. This time in Washington they understand the danger. That is why such attention is paid to attempts to encourage the appearance of the coalition government of the Sunnis and Shiites in Baghdad.

However, so far it is not possible to create any coalition. The Sunnis are too offended, embittered and see al-Baghdadi in the caliph of al-Baghdadi too fanatical and cruel, but still a defender against Shiite arbitrariness and violence. And in the Sunni regions of Baghdad, attacks and murders resumed, behind which are Shiite fanatics, which are not much better than fanatics of the Sunni. God forbid involuntarily help them become masters in the country. But this can happen - after a long and extremely bloody civil war. But such a scenario in Washington should also take into account, enough to receive unpleasant surprises from the Middle East.

It is impossible to completely discard the possibility that Iraq will nevertheless fall into three parts - the Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish. Of course, this is bad, but, as the tragic Yugoslav experience shows, the resettlement of ethnic and confessional “individual apartments” may well turn out to be less evil compared to the total civil war.

On July 4, the world recalls the most, perhaps, the famous phrase from the US Independence Declaration - about self -evident and inalienable human rights: to life, freedom and desire to happiness. I know the Iraqi intelligentsia well, the city middle class. These are educated, secular people. For each of them, there is nothing more important than the same self -evident things. But alas, the United States is powerless to help them, because those who are steaming on both sides of the conflict do not put these rights in a penny.

Andrey Ostalsky-London-Estrient journalist and political commentator

Opinions expressed under the heading "Law" may not reflect the point of view of the editorial office