Crisis with a "plus" sign: what has changed in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime

America is often accused of unleashing the war in Iraq under false pretenses. Indeed, the pretext was false and the decision to invade was reckless and thoughtless. But now, a couple of decades later, it is becoming increasingly clear that the results of the American invasion of Iraq are generally more positive than negative. In any case, most Iraqis are unlikely to want to go back to the bloody dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

American journalist Sabirzhan Badretdinov in his blog asked the question: what has changed in Iraq for the better after 2003, when an international coalition led by the United States invaded Iraq?

“Firstly, instead of a brutal dictatorship, a pluralistic system was established, with the separation of powers, with real competition between different parties and a regular change of power. This system is marred by temporary outbreaks of violence, but it generally works.

Secondly, all the main ethno-religious groups of the country (Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds) gained access to power. Before Hussein's regime was overthrown, all power was in the hands of the Sunnis, who constituted a minority of the country's population. With the adoption of a new constitution in 2005, the Shiites were assigned the position of prime minister, the Sunnis were assigned the position of parliamentary speaker, and the Kurds were assigned the position of president.

Thirdly, over the past 10 years, the level of violence in the country has dropped sharply. In the first years after the foreign invasion, the number of terrorist attacks was mind-bogglingly large: bombs were regularly detonated in public places such as street bazaars, mosques (both Shia and Sunni) were blown up, assassination attempts were made on certain politicians. After about 2010, the level of violence began to gradually decrease, and today bombings or killings are rare.

Moreover, if Saddam Hussein's Iraq, with its fourth largest army in the world, posed an immediate threat to Israel, today this danger has been much reduced, if not completely eliminated. Yes, the leaders of Iraq are still anti-Israel today, but in view of the dispersion of power between numerous parties, movements, religious communities and politicians, the decision to launch a military attack on Israel simply does not seem realistic. Yes, and a small American military contingent still remains in the country.

The current situation in Iraq is rather peculiar. For the first time in its history, the country is experiencing something that usually happens only in democratic countries. Namely: a constitutional crisis.

As a result of last year's parliamentary elections, a coalition led by Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr won a majority of votes, but due to a boycott of the elections by another Shiite coalition (linked to Iran), they could not form a government. In protest, al-Sadr's coalition left parliament. Opponents of al-Sadr immediately took all the vacant seats and began to create their own government. In response, al-Sadr's supporters blocked the entrance to parliament and have been blocking it for quite some time now.

It is not clear how this crisis will end, but the fact that it has not yet been accompanied by violence attracts attention. And this is a pretty positive sign. A sign of the gradual rooting of the principle of pluralistic coexistence...".