With many Sunnis in Iraq so afraid of arbitrary torture, jailings and killings by government forces that they welcome even Isis's protection, we shouldn't take sides in a sectarian civil war ("Iraqi PM rejects unity plea", The Herald, June 26).
Iraqi forces use the same torture methods as Saddam, shoot protesters and summarily execute suspects; partly Saddam's legacy, partly that of US death squad training continued from El Salvador.
Isis's few thousand fighters couldn't beat the Iraqi army without the support of Sunni Iraqi Islamists, tribes and Baathists, and uneasy Isis allies could change sides if given jobs and government posts. Baathists have already clashed with Isis.
From 2006 to 2009 the US provided pay and weapons to Sunni Awakening militias who had turned against al Qaida. When US funding ended the militias became neutral and al Qaida in Iraq began growing.
Sunnis should also be guaranteed an agreed percentage of army jobs.
The distrust created by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki's sectarian government also requires a coalition government representing all Iraqi parties. Maliki claims this would be undemocratic. It wouldn't. Real democracy doesn't involve winners and losers. It gives everyone a voice.
Tony Blair continues to be a Siren in denial, calling us to the rocks.
Isis split from al Qaida in Iraq and the Al Nusra branch al Qaida established in Syria. Al Qaida wasn't in Iraq before the 2003 invasion.
Mr Blair's apologists claim the US would have invaded Iraq without British support. Yet US opinion polls before the invasion showed most opposed an invasion if their allies did not support it, while two thirds would support it if US allies did.
Nato governments have been funnelling arms via the Saudis and Jordanians to the so called "moderates" among the Syrian rebels, in some cases just con men selling arms on. Some of these arms ended up in the hands of Al Nusra and some will be in Isis's hands now.
Careless intervention is much worse than doing nothing.
Duncan McFarlane,
Beanshields,
Braidwood, Carluke.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article