IRAQ BREAKS RECORDS OF VIOLENCE

At first glance, the situation around Syria has firmly knocked Iraq out of the zone of increased global attention. Stumbling on the news of another terrorist attack in one of Iraqi cities on the Internet or in the print media, we are likely to indifferently glimpse the headline. For some reason, fatalities in Iraq are not so terrifying for journalists and international human rights organizations like those in Syria. Everyone seems to have got used to the fact that now Iraq is not only the cradle of the world civilization and the birthplace of many nationalities and ethnic and religious groups, but, unfortunately, a place of violent clashes between the Sunnis and Shiites. Iraq has long been perceived as a country frozen in a strange and constantly fluctuating point of transition from total chaos and civil war to desired, but such distant democracy. Saddam Hussein was hanged, the echo of Bush's victory speech from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier has long subsided, the remains of Osama bin Laden lie somewhere on the ocean floor, American soldiers returned home and the permanent Iraqi government has been operating for seven years, but the level of violence in the Middle East country continues to break all the sad records. According to the UN, more than 5,000 people have been killed in the country since the beginning of the year and 804 last August alone, while about 10,000 have been injured. This is the highest level since 2008.

As recently as 15 September, Iraq was literally shaken by a series of explosions that killed 60 people. Most of the attacks were carried out in cities with a predominantly Shiite population - cars and food and market stalls were blown up, bombs detonated in an industrial area near a construction site and along the route of government officials' motorcade.

However, we cannot say that only Shiites are suffering. A few days ago, about 30 people were killed and 25 were injured in bomb blasts near a Sunni mosque in the Iraqi city of Baquba - mines exploded as worshippers walked home after Friday prayers. The next day, a suicide bomber blew himself up at a funeral in northern Iraq near the city of Mosul. More than 20 of the dead and dozens of the wounded turned out to be members of the national-religious group - Shabaka, who consider themselves Muslims (mostly Shiites and sometimes Sunnis), but their religion has elements of Christianity and Zoroastrianism. Explosions also thundered in the Sunni and Shiite areas of Baghdad in the holy month of Ramadan, which is recognized as the deadliest in the last five years...

The main causes of violence are the same - bad blood between the Shiite and Sunni communities of Iraq. Everyone knows this story - during the reign of Saddam Hussein, the Sunnis were in power, dominating the government, army and economy. The Shiites, especially the Shiite clergy, on the contrary, were persecuted by the Ba'thist government, and the Shiite south of Iraq was getting less economic benefits and social assistance. However, after Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, state governance was mainly taken over by the Shiites, whom the Sunnis are now accusing of the same crimes that were once committed against them - repression, harassment, mass arrests, etc. Sunnis claim that they are being systematically discriminated against by the Shiite government led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

However, we cannot say that al-Maliki's government controls the situation in the country as tightly and firmly as did Saddam Hussein. It is rather the other way round. It is enough to mention the July attack on two prisons (Abu Ghraib and Taji), resulting in about a thousand prisoners (!), accused of having links to Al Qaeda, escaping from custody. The siege of the prisons lasted several hours and during the assault, the attackers used heavy weapons, including mortars.

No faction claimed responsibility for the attacks on the prisons and the recent bombings in the Shiite areas of Iraq. However, it is noted that the suspicion falls on the local branch of Al-Qaeda known as the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI). The ISI has repeatedly stated that they are fighting the Shiite government not only through explosions in Shiite neighborhoods, but also through the murder of representatives of the government and law enforcement agencies. In its appeal in August of this year, the US State Department condemned the series of bombings and shootings in Iraq and said the attacks were similar to the ones organized by Al-Qaeda militants.

For security reasons, the Iraqi government carried out a campaign called "Revenge for Martyrs", during which the security forces combed some areas of Baghdad in search of suspected collaborators with al-Qaeda. The mopping-up operations occurred mainly in the Sunni areas of Baghdad, hundreds of people were arrested and according to the Sunnis themselves, in most cases, the arrests were completely unfounded. Earlier, a demonstration of Sunnis in the city of Hawija in the north was dispersed with firearms, which caused the deaths of several dozen people.

It turns out that both sides are using the same methods, often in the style of "death squads"...

Meanwhile, in comments on the news about the latest terrorist attack in Iraq, often you may not hear a reference to religious affiliation - it is just reported that it was the work of "radical Islamists". At the same time, however, it is impossible to find a direct and clear answer to who these Islamists are, where they come from (or why there is no end to them despite the active 10-year efforts of the world's strongest army), where the boundaries of their influence are and what sources of funding they have. For example, the scale of Iraqi terrorist attacks in summer shows that whoever commits them, this "someone" obviously does not suffer from financial difficulties.

Finally, another important question is what these same radicals are trying to achieve with their endless attacks. All experts on the Middle East state: "The purpose of radical Islamists is to incite enmity between the two trends in Islam." But this cannot be a purpose by itself - it is logically clear that "incitement of hatred" can only be the means. The means to achieve what? What goal?

It is even more difficult to figure out who among the so-called radical Islamists is behind whom, who obeys whom, who supports whom and where ideology and religion end and other interests begin.

By the way, this mishmash is very similar to the current situation in Syria. The Telegraph quotes a report by the research center IHS Jane's as saying that in this country, thousands of different groups are now fighting each other and Assad's army, and the most radical ones of them are associated with Al-Qaeda, including, it is alleged, its Iraqi "branch", which has long been completely independent. Le Figaro says the same, citing figures from the United Nations. At the same time, it seems that the aforementioned heterogeneous militants move freely from one country to another and certainly do not need visas. Nor do they need a permit to carry weapons. The media is even using a new name - the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". It seems that the situation in Syria does not distract attention from the situation in Iraq, but only exacerbates it. Or are these the links of one chain?

It is too cynical and primitive to explain what is happening in Iraq only by hatred between Sunnis and Shiites. Is the feud between these people so strong that every day they are ready to sacrifice the most promising young members of their communities and see women and children being torn to pieces by bombs? The Sunnis and Shiites observe the same fundamental laws of Islam, but take different approaches to religious law and practice. It is clear that it is a totally insufficient reason for the years of the bloody civil war, especially in the 21st century and in a state that has a secular and legitimately elected government.