>I have no doubt such a leader could heal the wounds in Iraq. My confidence level that such a leader will emerge any time soon is low. The real problem is Shiites and Sunnis hate each other even more than they hate Americans. Iraq seems to be growing more barbaric, not more enlightened.
>
>I need to reread the history of the schism but IIRC it didn't start out as much of a difference of opinion. It was a case of two groups agreeing 99% and deciding to become enemies over the other 1%. We can be a pretty dumb species sometimes (not limiting that to Iraqis).

From what I've read, the schism was over the way new leaders will be put into office after Mohamed's death: by vote (Sunni) or by being descendants of the prophet (Shia). I.e. democracy vs aristocracy. This difference may cover 1% of the text, but isn't in any way minor.

OTOH, I very much doubt that the Muslims have the same cult of leadership as the West has. Look at how Al Qaeda has spare leaders. They don't care how many of their leaders get shot, there's always the next one ready. Or, did much change in Iran after Homeini died?