“Peace” is an altruistic feeling; does it really exist.

James Barnes’ article headline, “George Bush’s Press Secretary Can’t Remember When Iraq War Started” is probably correct. Deduction will tell you, backtracking “exactly” when Iraq War did start is not significant and irrelevant in this case. The current war crime is more of a historical, sectarian debate between the Sunni, Shia, and Kurds as to who should be Prophet Muhammad’s successor. Therefore; citizens are identified to what “sectarian” he or she belongs, rather than, swearing an allegiance to Iraqi government.

The Clash of Civilization, a book written by Samuel Huntington recognized that: Civil divergence in a significant bloc or community may occur should religious and cultural differences do not achieve that harmonious understanding and mutual respect which each of the members require.

Aforementioned principle do apply in the present scenario for Iraq is composed of three (3) different sects, the Sunni, Shia, and Kurd. As BBC News put the ethnic group into numbers: “Arab — 72%, Kurds — 23%, and the remaining of 5%.” Notice the significant gap between the first and the second which translates into implied question of, who owns the power.

Question: Why “ethnic group” and a huge gap of percentile do matter?

Answer: Ethnic group defines the countries’ identity, it is the foundation of its belief (may it either be political or religious), and a basis of a vast cultural traditions. Therefore; acceptance is needed to harmonize the differences. Problem is, no matter how much effort and energy have been exerted, either of the party refuses to understand the circumstances, and opted to turn a blind eye that transcends to irreconcilable differences.

Secondly, who would forget Saddam Hussein’s regime, it was Year 1991 when there was an execution of the Kurds and butchery of Shias.

In marriage, when the husband and wife have irreconcilable differences, they choose to revoke the sanctity of their “legal” partnership through divorce. If divorce is adjudge by the court, there will be division of properties. Same inference applies to ethnic groups, the execution of the minority or either party, the so-called “ethnic cleansing.”

Ethnic cleansing is not new to our history: The separation of Ethiopia and Eritrea, the elimination of the Tutsis by the Hutus (remember the movie, Hotel Rwanda), and the most recent, the independence of Bosnia-Herzegovina from Serbia.

Question: Should United States be allowed to intervene?

Answer: International Law provides that a country, being sovereign, should be entitled to its own “dependence” and “self-realization”.

As a rule, a state cannot intervene to another, “dependence.” Exception:Military, Economic, and Diplomacy. Things to consider are preservation of humanity, right to life, upholding the rule of law.

The presence of Levant (ISIL) and its massive execution of the Iraqi soldiers (although some claimed, ISIL doesn’t hurt civilians, rather they have specific names in them) are extremely uncalled for to the International community and should be condemned. ISIL, without stating the obvious, is not just a threat in Iraq alone, but now, to the rest of the countries national security.

In a recent statement of President Barack Obama: “United States will send troops only to protect its chancery and American citizens in Iraq.” Proven by history that US’ intervention hasn’t been effective to repress and topple terrorism. If there shall be another military enforcement, when will Iraqi government learn to mobilize its own paramilitary and government capability.