Maliki finally quits: will this help Iraq out of chaos?

Iraq's embattled, but defiant prime minister Nuri-al-Maliki has finally succumbed to national and international pressure to make way for a new government to effectively tackle the threats posed by the 'jihadists' to the country. His successor, Haider-al-Abadi, a fellow member of Maliki's Shiite "Dawa" party, received quick support from Baghdad's key ally - the United States.
US President Barack Obama said he looked forward to the formation of a new authority in Iraq that would be 'inclusive', covering all communities.
Even United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed satisfaction over the developments. This would allow the formation of a 'broad-based' government in the country ready to immediately tackle the pressing issues, he said.
Maliki, who has already served two terms and was eyeing a third one, is accused of being divisive because of his hard-line Shiite policies that sidelined two other major communities - the Sunnis and the Kurds.
The recent spectacular advance of the Sunni fighters known as "Islamic State" or 'Jihadists' is attributed to, among other factors, Maliki's one-eyed policy of promoting the Shias at all levels. The United States and other nations close o the Baghdad government, having big stakes in the affairs of Iraq, feel that the prime minister's inability to develop cohesion has alienated the Sunnis. This eventually created commotion and contributed to the dangerous threats of territorial integrity of the Arab country.
Large swathes of northern and western Iraq are now controlled by the 'Jihadists', who have formed the 'Islamic State' straddling the areas of Iraq and Syria they have occupied. This situation has come as a big shock for the United States. Washington has, of late, launched air attacks on the Sunni militants, particularly in the Kurdistan areas.
The autonomous 'Kurdistan' within Iraq is also very dissatisfied with the Baghdad government under Maliki and expressed its willingness for independence.
However, in the current crisis, the Kurds are also fighting the 'Jihadists' and Washington says their vital interests in Kurdistan prompted it to carry out air attacks against the Sunni fighters zeroing in on the centre.
The US said the protection of religious minorities is also a matter of great concern since the Islamic State fighters have launched 'untold repression' on the minorities like the 'Yazidis', a small community, whose many members have taken shelter in the Sinjar mountains.
Other western nations are also mulling over supplying arms to the Kurds.
The US has dispatched several hundred military advisers to Iraq in aid of the beleaguered Baghdad government.
Earlier, President Obama, reversing his fundamental foreign policy, sent military advisers to Iraq and launched air attacks although he insists that the administration is not militarily involving the US again in Iraq.
Obama was an outspoken critic of his Republican predecessor George Bush's sending of troops to Afghanistan, especially Iraq, and slowly brought back the soldiers from Iraq in 2011. The US-led foreign troops are also scheduled to leave Afghanistan by the end of current year, but doubts persist about this withdrawal.
Obama says troops would not be sent to Iraq again. But this assertion notwithstanding, fact remains that the US has already got militarily involved in Iraq.
But the question is: Will the foreign support and assistance crush the 'Jihadists' and really help new government in Baghdad tackle the simmering problems?  Evidently, the air attacks have weakened the Sunni fighters and halted their advance in some areas. But, scepticism persists whether such actions would eliminate or decimate the IS fighters, who have taken control of several oilfields along with key dams and other places.
Iraq is virtually divided into Shiite-dominated Baghdad government, the IS and the Kurdistan. This is the vague de facto geographical scenario of the country and it appears to be a Herculean task to reverse this condition even by foreign military intervention that is, of course, helping the Iraqi government.
The crux of the problem is that the population is deeply divided. It was agreed that the majority Shia will have the Prime Minister, the Sunni Parliament Speaker and the Kurds largely ceremonial presidency. But Maliki as the head of government for last eight years has only ruptured society in a manner that seems beyond repair.
Besides, the overthrow of the Saddam regime by the US-led forces in 2003 caused a chasm in the country despite the fact that Saddam was a ruthless dictator. Saddam, a Sunni, at least held Iraq together. But this has now diminished. His supporters are known to be with the IS.
President Obama's stance that he is acting to protect the religious minorities is also seen by many quarters with a grain of salt since he did not intervene when 175,000 people were killed in Syria in the civil war, or, more pertinently, civilians, including women and children, are being massacred by Israel in Palestine.
The double standard of the West is sadly very much in the fore while no saner section of people can endorse the repression by the IS fighters on the minorities. Iran, the Shiite neighbour of Iraq, backs the Iraq government, but looks askance at the designs of the US, which is strongly behind Iraq.
This is a complex situation where an impression also exists that the US is seeking to fish in the troubled waters in the guise of crushing the Sunni fighters, wants to involve Tehran directly in the imbroglio. Iran appears to be quite circumspect in the matter even though it is for the Baghdad government and supports the new prime minister.
Analysts feel whatever government exists in Baghdad that will not change the reality that the struggle is now a multi-national muscle tussle well outside its control.
The Saudis and Kuwaitis have interest in checking the Shias and will continue funding the Sunnis. Turkey and Syria, two bordering countries, have contrasting interests in the Iraq situation. An impression also exists that the US has lunched the air strikes to divert the attention from the brutal situation in Palestine and also Obama administration's "lame-duck" approach in controlling Russia over Ukraine crisis.
Analyses may differ, but it appears that the overall Iraq situation is unlikely to alter much and the country will tear itself apart in due course regardless of who is prime minister in Baghdad.  
    [email protected]