Iraq in a nutshell . . .

. . . or I should say "nut graph," as they say in journalism school. From the NYT:

That many Sunnis would prefer to take their chances under a militant group so violent it was thrown out of Al Qaeda sharply illustrates how difficult it will be for the Iraqi government to reassert control. Any aggressive effort by Baghdad to retake the city could reinforce the Iraqi Army’s reputation as an occupying force, rather than a guarantor of security.

That many Sunnis would prefer to take their chances under a militant group so violent it was thrown out of Al Qaeda sharply illustrates how difficult it will be for the Iraqi government to reassert control. Any aggressive effort by Baghdad to retake the city could reinforce the Iraqi Army’s reputation as an occupying force, rather than a guarantor of security

Many of those who fled said they were terrified of possible airstrikes and indiscriminate shelling that they have seen, in news reports, against insurgents in Sunni-dominated Anbar Province, which has been out of government control for more than six months. Some, saying a rumor had been swirling through the local population, even worried that the Americans would be back to bomb their city. And most said the militants in Mosul had not terrorized the population and were keeping a low profile, with a small number of men in black masks staffing checkpoints.

Story. The headline on the story is wrong, as it makes it seem as if the people actually want the mujaheddin. And while ISIS is extremely violent, the break with al Qaeda is far more complicated than the writer glibly states - and let's be real: al Qaeda is not exactly Ghandi. But the general attitude of the fleeing residents toward the government does jibe very much with what I've heard from people there.

This has been several years in the making. Maybe the real question isn't whether Iraq will split up, but what form the Sunni-dominated western country will take. Will the mujaheddin dominate, or will the tribes reassert control?