The civil war in Iraq is not a result of sectarian divisions

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/30/civil-war-iraq-sectarian-division

Version 0 of 1.

Philippe Sands QC is right to describe the delay in publication of the Chilcot report on the Iraq war as disgraceful (Report, 27 June). But while he may be right that it is futile to speculate as to the "exact" connection between the situation today and decisions taken in 2003, the broad consequences of the refusal to plan for the peace are clear.

Clare Short and her permanent secretary at the Department for International Development, Suma Chakrabarti, explained in evidence to the inquiry the ban imposed by No 10 on advance planning with NGOs and the UN. Short said we went in "on a wing and a prayer". Detailed plans were prepared in both Washington and London, but binned on orders from Washington because the authors of the war believed that the invaders would simply be greeted as liberators. Follies such as the failure to prevent looting and the decision to send the Iraqi army home without removing its weapons are well known.

The ban on communication continued. I was told in 2004 by an officer on leave from Iraq that he had had to take decisions on matters completely outside his competence, such as pay rates for newly recruited Iraqi policemen. I asked why he had not consulted DfID; he answered that the military were not allowed to consult a civil authority. It is a reasonable assumption that the men and munitions that went missing after the invasion are part of the explanation for the appearance earlier this month of the competent and well-equipped fighting force which astonished us all by capturing Iraq's second city of Mosul and claiming to establish an Islamic republic in western Iraq and eastern Syria.Oliver MilesOxford

• I would like to respond to Mona Mahmood and Mark Tran (Isis onslaught in Iraq claims terrible toll of victims on both sides of divide, 27 June). First, while the killing of any Sunnis is abhorrent, the authors describe the Shia militias in ways that suggest an equivalence with Isis insurgents – and this is neither right in scope nor content. Isis fighters are a threat to all Iraqis of all faiths. Their recent attacks against Christian civilians, the men murdered in Tikrit and their continual threats to Shias and moderate Sunnis attest to this. Framing this as tit-for-tat sectarianism is wrong. These are not equivalent forces and they most certainly do not have equivalent motives in Iraq.

Second, it is a gross misrepresentation of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's recent statement to claim he has "summoned" these Shia militias. He called for all Iraqi citizens, regardless of their sectarian affiliation, to fight the Isis forces, but he has emphasised his wish for all those who wish to fight to do so through the Iraqi army. Iraq does not need unsubstantiated claims that may stoke further sectarian tensions.Yousif Al-KhoeiCentre for Academic Shia Studies, London

• Laurie Lee and his Spanish civil war comrades would be turning in their graves to see themselves compared to Isis (Letters, 27 June). Either Carole Satyamurti knows nothing of Isis's massacres, beheadings and crucifixions, or she dishonours the memory of the brigadistas by implying that they too did such things and sought to imprison women and impose theocratic tyranny. Does she not understand that the Spanish civil war volunteers fought against the far right and a religious state? And that the immediate threat posed by a handful of British Isis volunteers (and their apologists) is to the people of Syria and Iraq?Peter McKennaLiverpool