Did World War 1 solve Europe's problems? Well its sort of a yes and no answer
Shireen Hunter 19 Comments by Shireen T. Clearly, Maliki has not been a successful prime minister. Could a different person have done a better job?
All along, the goal of Iraqi Sunnis has been to prove that the Shias are not capable of governing Iraq. The Sunnis see political leadership and governance to be their birthright and resent the Shia interlopers.
After ruling the country for centuries, both under the Ottomans and after independence, and after oppressing the Shias and viewing them as heretics and dregs of society, the Sunnis find Shia rule to sit heavily on them.
It is thus difficult to imagine what any Shia prime minister could have done — or could now do — to satisfy the Sunnis. Yet considering what the Shias had suffered under Saddam, there was no possibility that they could agree.
Masood Barzani, who dreams of an independent Kurdistan, has also done what he can to undermine the authority of the government in Baghdad, by essentially running his own economic, oil, and foreign policies.
But Turkey snubbed him and supported his rival, Tariq al-Hashimi. The Arab states have also shunned him. Under these circumstances, Maliki had no choice but to move closer to Iran. Yet the idea that he has thus become an Iranian pawn is a myth with no foundation in reality.
Even now, Iraq has not reestablished the Algiers Agreement of that regularized Iraqi-Iranian border disputes, an agreement which, before attacking Kuwait inSaddam had accepted.
Iraq has not signed a peace treaty with Iran and competes with it in courting clients for oil exports. Iraq also has more extensive trade relations with Turkey than with Iran.
Further, most killings in Iraq have been in Shia areas, undertaken by Sunni extremists of various kinds who are funded by Sunni governments in the region. The plight of the Shias has also not been limited to Iraq. Western and especially US dislike of Iran has been a major cause for the disregarding of mass killings and assassination of Shias.
The most glaring example was the US courting of Sunni insurgents and tribal leaders, both of which were thus emboldened to commit acts such as attacking the Shia shrines in Samara in and frightening the Shias that America would again betray them as it did at the end of the Persian Gulf War in Wanting to isolate Iran and perhaps to bring about regime change there, the US has also done virtually nothing to reign in the Saudis and others, including Turkey and Qatar, to prevent them from funding Sunni insurgents.
Instead, Washington has blamed Iraqi unrest solely on Iranian meddling. To date, it has proved to be difficult — indeed impossible — to eliminate Saddam but produce a stable Iraq; to isolate Iran and possibly change its regime; to get rid of Assad in Syria without exacerbating its civil war; to forge a Sunni-Israeli alliance against Shia Iran; and to convince other Shias throughout the region to continue playing second fiddle to the Sunnis.
To summarize, Nouri al-Maliki is certainly flawed and has made many mistakes.But no matter what we do, there will always be war, just cause all humans are stupid. You will disagree, but think about it. We can't solve the many many many problems in the world today. War is a state of conflict and each time war is declared the main aim is to try and solve a problem.
War is different in each situation and you cannot say that every war . Commitment Problems •Civil war negotiations fail because the one side can not credibly commit to any agreement.
•Walter () argues that “*n+egotiations fail because civil war opponents are asked to do what they consider unthinkable. At a time when no Civil War: Problems and Solutions.
Violence never seems to be a solution to any problem. Violence usually makes more violence. War is not the answer to problems in countries. Non violent solutions would always be better. The 'problem-solving approach' has been amply publicized and carefully explained (Sandole and van der Merwe, ; Azar and Burton, ; Burton, , b; Ronald Fisher, a, b).
The traditional emphasis on states as rational actors has increasingly lost in salience in the turbulence of the post-Cold War era. When problem-solving everyday issues becomes a tug-of-war over who’s right and who’s wrong, then settling even the smallest of discussions becomes a battle.