The notion that all parties would've been happy with the borders they were given and conflict would not result is naivete to the extreme. The Kurds for example would've likely not been given Kirkuk and the Sunnis would want far more than they'd end up with and Baghdad is not easy to resolve. This is the ISIL target map for example, published in Turkish paper Milliyet a week ago:
Not saying that's what they're aiming for right this second, but to publish it shows you're pretty expansionist in belief and not accepting of a triangle of Iraq and the northeastern corner of Syria. This conflict is far far far beyond just Iraqi locals being involved or a Syrian Civil War. Anyone that suggests so such as the ABC journalist there should be given another assignment because they don't understand what's going on. This is a pan-Arabian Peninsula conflict now where the sides are something along the lines of:
Iran/Syria/Alawites/Shiites/Assad/Hezbollah/Iraq/Maliki/Egyptian military/Sadrist militias et al
vs.
al-Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood/Syrian rebels/Qatar/ISIL/Saudi Arabia/Bahrain/Libyan rebels/Sunnis/Islamists
Neutral or close to it/hoping they don't get dragged in: Turkey/Israel/Kurds/Jordan/local Christians/millions of civilians that likely don't back either side
Hopefully this won't get any larger than it has while western leaders and the UN play the fiddle as Babylon burns.
Today's news:
-ISIL and al-Nusra Front have joined together, which is major news for the conflict in Syria.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/10925602/Al-Qaeda-merges-with-Isis-at-Syria-Iraq-border-town.html-A message board post from an Iraqi 36 minutes ago: "ISIS mobilized a big force and is reportedly attacking Peshmerga forces in Hamdnaya and Qaraqush in Nineveh right now."
