I don't mind much whether he goes or not it doesn't change much, I rather see the foreigner and corrupt money leeching zebari thrown out in the upcoming no confidence vote, as well as many others which means most of them.
Closer PMF integration and eradicating religious as well as political affiliations from their leadership as well as the low ranking fighters is a long process that can only really be implemented once the IS threat is over and even then it would take years of political struggle.
The key issue here is that KSA wants a strong Iraqi state and strong INDEPENDENT Iraqi institutions (as previously) while Iran wants a fragmented Iraq where religious militias that they can directly influence and control have a big say. Why do you think that wherever the Iranian Mullah's have interfered you have militias roaming around? Look at Lebanon. Hezbollah is doing everything in order to remain in power and weaken the Lebanese central state instead of creating a strong and inclusive Lebanon and army. Look at Syria. Now in Yemen they are supporting another such religious militia instead of supporting the state.
KSA does not support any militia in Iraq. It supports certain politicians and parties but that is simple lobbyism that all powerful states do. Those are not hostile activities. Moreover those politicians are Iraqi politicians and likewise the political parties. KSA did not create them.
Also how can any Iraqi with respect for himself accept the current situation given the recent Iraqi-Iranian past and the fact that Iranian officials are openly bragging about controlling Baghdad? I know Iraqis as very proud people, as are all Arabs, so I cannot phantom such behavior. I cannot phantom how Iraq, the center of Shia Islam nowadays, is leaving their indigenous Shia traditions and that the clergy is slowly being overtaken by the Iranian Wilayat al-Faqih system. Have you ever wondered, why the most respected Shia cleric in Iraq, Al-Sistani (an Iranian Arab himself) does not support the Iranian regime and its policy and acts independently?
As for the Kurd, this is the legacy of the sectarian system that the Americans put in place and which Iran (Mullahs) was supporting behind the scenes BTW.
Look at the wider picture. It is not in the interest of KSA at all or other neighboring Arab states to have a weak Iraq as a stable Iraq usually means a stable region. However Iran, under the Mullah's (not the Shah) is first and foremost interested in spreading their revolution in order to gain influence in the region (Arab Shias and Afghan/Pakistani Shias) and they need access to Iraq in order to influence events in Lebanon, Syria etc.
I honestly don't think that you understand how big a hold the Iranian Mullah's have of Iraq and Iraqi institutions. Nor the fact that many of those Shia militias and "political" parties are counterproductive and when the war in Iraq ends (when is a good question) they will pursue their own agenda that is for sure not aligned with that of the Iraqi state. We have already seen signs of that. A good example is Al-Sadr who broke with Iran a few years ago and is now disrupting events. He has a horde of millions of brainless (largely) sheep followers. Not only that his followers are capable of storming the parliament, the Green Zone etc. Would this happen in a stable country? Ask yourself this question. Also this is a Shia Twelve doing all this against a mainly Shia Twelve regime in power.
This discussion has nothing to do with sect but the above reality cannot be ignored.
As for KSA and Arab regimes, we all know and understand that they have made serious political faults in Iraq as well, but understand that this is mostly a thing of the past and that it was never on the level that we see today in Iraq from the Mullah's and have seen for a very long time. KSA is blamed by some circles for keeping Saddam in power which is ridiculous as KSA did not put him in power nor did KSA have any say in internal Iraqi matters under Saddam as Iraq was a regional power back then until at least the beginning of the Gulf War. Afterwards it was completely isolated by every single country except Jordan and KSA which allowed refugees (for instance 1000's upon 1000's of Iraqi Shia Arabs escaped to KSA when the uprising in the South began, Malik is one of such people). Nor was it Kuwait's fault that Saddam invaded it. No matter how you look at it. The payments and economics could have always been dealt with diplomatically but Saddam had his own ways as we all saw before and after that war (Gulf War) as well.
We also all understand that certain opportunistic clerics have tried to create trouble from across the Arab world but such people I do not consider fellow Arabs as any Arab who hates a fellow Arab solely due to differences in sect, has lost the honor to be called one in my eyes. I do not respect such people. Disliking regimes and key figures of those regimes is another matter but the average man and woman who just mind their own business are innocent of any wrongdoing and cannot be hated or blamed for political decisions.
For instance 95% of all people that ISIS kill are like that. Disliking whole nations due to leaders (unelected) makes no sense either or labelling all people a certain sect likewise despite ground realities showing differently.
In general uneducated and brainwashed people are the biggest problem in all walks of life.
Anyway if it was up to KSA, Iraq would have remained a monarchy and if that was the case I am quite sure that it would have been better off than what we have seen since 1958 OVERALL. Believe it or not but millions upon millions of Iraqis long for that era despite it not being perfect but at least it was a peaceful era where things were moving in the right direction. On some fronts slower than others but they were moving forward nevertheless.
In 10 years time, I hope to death that I am wrong, when we/if we talk again and the situation in Iraq will not change, you will realize that I was right. Just as I was right when I said that al-Malikis policies were a recipe for disaster and that he contributed and helped in the rise of ISIS. I was permanently banned for saying this openly long before ISIS came to live again, before the protests in Anbar and when what turned into ISIS was almost extinct. For that and for criticizing the political elite, mostly the, what latter turned out to be extremely corrupt, pro-Mullah politicians and officers. The moderator could not tolerate it and now he is probably complaining as I did but its too late now. I am told by old friends that this is the case.
Also another thing that worries me is the fact that Iraqis have become much more intolerant than they were in the past and religious. The latter is not a problem in itself but in a country like Iraq, with its recent history, this is often problematic. Also, without overreacting, they are currently the most religious people in the entire Arab world. The influence of the clergy, especially the Shia one (as they are very organized due to the hierarchical system compared to Sunni clergy) has reached a dangerous level. In KSA you see the other tendency. People want less religion in the public sphere. Same story in Iran. In Iraq the tendency is the opposite one. At least currently but a reaction will eventually come as well.
Talk with your relatives in Iraq about some of the issues that I raised in this post and I am quite sure that they will agree with me.
