>>In dutch:
>>http://www.antenna.nl/nvmp/020401.htm
>>
>>In english
>>http://www.brook.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb93.htm
>>
>>The ones I could find quickly. No question you could find hundreds.
>>
>>Walter,
>
>So far, the one you found has nothing to prove what you said before. I can't see in this article where it says that the war may bring a threat of suicidal violence killing dozens of iraqis by other iraqis almost every day. Your claim for hundreds is baseless too.

I'm surprised he even bothered looking for a link, Dmitry.

Before the attack on Iraq there were many many many people reminding of the history of the area, the "success" of the Brits back in the 20s-30s, the fact that Saddam was from a minority sect that was running everything, the fact that there were no-fly zones to PROTECT people from Saddam's wrath, that U.S. military personnel who were experts on the issues assessed that around a half-million troops would be needed to preserve order after victory, etc, etc, etc.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that **any** country that is invaded by another breeds resistance fighters and that Saddam had left weapons all over the place to make that easier. It doesn't take brilliance to figure out that a suppressed (for many years, in just about any way possible) majority is going to want to extract revenge at every opportunity.
Muslims invented the "suicide bomber" so it should come as no surprise that things would go up a notch or two in such uncontrolled conditions.

For anyone to think that there would NOT be civil and sectarian-based violence in the aftermath of victory when there were far far too few troops on the ground to attempt to maintain law and order is someone who has their head elsewhere than in reality.
There may have been a chance to keep it down and ultimately end it *IF* there had been troops on every street corner, but that wasn't in the cards from the start. The expert who suggested something like that was 'retired' early from the military.