The Four (count them - FOUR) Interlinked Wars in Iraq

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

This is a rather interesting article which articulates why much of the rhetoric about staying until "victory" or "until the job is done" is so hopelessly simplistic. It also makes it clear that even if the much vaunted "Surge" manages to work in Baghdad (that's the centre of "Iraq War No. 2"), it not only won't help achieve or lead to victory in the other three Iraq Wars, it will probably make them worse.

In other words, the whole situation is now like a knot that just gets more tangled the more you try to pick at it.

And before the Bush Cheerleaders start shaking their pom poms and chanting that Slate.com is some kind of liberal media/Defeatocrat mouthpiece - the four wars model comes straight from the mouth of US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, the poor sap who was handed this brimming poison chalice by dear ol'Rummy;

There Are Four Iraq Wars: How many of them can we win?

By Phillip Carter

[hsimoorb]

I enjoy reading something about this conflict without the words "evil" appearing. It almost seems like that guy knew what he was tlaking about...

[Erik]

I think he is right about the first 3 wars (Shia vs Shia, Shia vs Sunni, and insurgency).
But I have seen no evidence that Al Qaida is involved in Iraq, I think that's just something the spin doctors fabricated to link the Iraq war with 9/11.

Look at this statement:

with al-Qaida hovering above the fray to spoil progress whenever it threatens to bring stability to Iraq, as they did by bombing the al-Askari Mosque in Samarra in February 2006

This is the first time I've seen anyone blame the Al-Askari bombing on Al-Qaida.
Most sources blame it on Al-Zarqawi's "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad" (branded "Al Qaida IN IRAQ" by the spin doctors, but in no way linked to Osama Bin Laden's "Al-Qaida").

More generally speaking you can even reduce it to two wars:
1) A war against the US occupation.
2) A civil war for the dominance of Iraq.