Iraqi sectarianism

The New York Times has a great article about sectarianism in Iraq, experienced through the lens of one Shia lawmaker.

Perusing some Iraqi blogs you read the oft-leveled criticism that the U.S. fomented the current pervasive sectarianism in the country, an accusation I am deeply skeptical of. The fact is, sectarianism was alive and well in the country long before the U.S. arrived on the scene -- the Anfal campaign against the Kurds and the crushing of the Shia uprising in the early 90s being prime examples.

The current divisions in Iraqi society aren't a product of U.S. machinations, but rather profoundly differing ideas about the future of Iraq and the direction in which it should proceed. The Shia and Kurds welcomed the U.S. invasion while the Sunnis did not. The Shia believe the are victims of Sunni oppression while the Sunni believe that ruling the country is their rightful place. In the wake of the U.S. invasion this played itself out through widespread violence perpetrated by Sunnis against the Shia for cooperating with the occupation and selling out Iraq. Ultimately futile -- indeed, it could never succeed based on the simple fact that the Sunnis are vastly outnumbered (a fact many of them still have not come to grips with) -- it resulted only in the build-up of vast reservoirs of hatred that led to the rise of the Shia militias that are now hell-bent on revenge.

The best analogy I can find to this situation is the post-Civil War South, where many Southern whites refused to accept the equality of former slaves. That acceptance didn't arrive for another 100 years at least. The key difference, however, is that in the South the former slaves were a minority while the Shia are a majority in Iraq. How long it will take the Sunnis to accept their lot in the new Iraq and the Shia to forgive them for the crimes of the past will play a huge role in determining when peace may finally be at hand. And frankly I don't know what role the U.S., if any, can play in this process.