I can't decide whether Shia and Sunni are a result of a religious or political divergence. Maybe, it's a little bit of both. To add to the problem, Americans are always compelled to apply their perfected democracy elsewhere, as it, in the mind of Americans, contains no flaw, and must be the one and only government worldwide. Nevertheless, when talking about the problem at hand, Sunni and Shia sectarianism, rather than viewing their situation as a religious divergence, like I usually do, in a protestant versus catholic frame of mind, I will view their situation in a federalists versus republican mentality. First let’s cover the basics. Considering Shia has taken control of the government, Sunni is compelled to use violence against the opposing side, for in their country, violence is more effective then persuasion. This is because of their lack of liberty and democracy. All we are doing is adding fuel to the fire. Our presence is decreasing their chances at liberty, thus increasing the violence. The less liberty a country has, the more violence, vice versa. Since the Sunni's represent the minority, despite being the majority in terms of percentage, they are fighting for power. Let’s apply the Shias to the republicans, and the Sunnis to the federalist. We will place the Shias as the Republicans, for they are in power, plus they followed the hereditary path of religious importance, and republicans followed the enlightened path of policital importance. In addition, federalists were in power before republicans, as Sunnis were in power before Shias. If their country were free from excessive imperialism, and military force, then the Sunni's (the federalist) would be dictating their strength of number, in order to minimize the power of the Shia (the republicans). In addition, Sunni's (the federalist) would be attacking the beliefs of the Shia (the republicans) in order to arouse competition between the two. Within the debate, the Sunnis would be defending their arguments vehemently as means of persuasion. However, without democracy, this debate would result in war. If they had a democracy, this situation would be far more progressive. It would be different because those in power, and those acting as minority, would consider the way of the system as fair game, as it was a result of vote. The Sunnis would not be disheartened, for they would not be completely out of power. The Sunnis would act on their empowerment in their establishment outside of the majority, at their less influential, but still essential spot. The Sunnis would be expressing their arguments in order to solicit a reform in which seeks to convince the Shia's to change their policy, or political platform. This may initially lead to violence, but once time goes on, they will realize the importance of political figures, thus, without acknowledging it, they will become a perfect emulation of the American democracy. Unfortunately, their country is not free nor does it have an actual democracy. Therefore, the situation is quite different. Considering it is rooted at religion, which is more rigid then politics, virulent anger and hatred is provoked by radicals, thus creating Holy War, with no end in sight. In addition to the problem, their situation involves family feuds, therefore, vengeance as oppose to justice, is viewed as a necessity. It is as if Saddam Hussein were a Democrat, and Bush were a Republican, and they both lived in the same country. Since the Sunnis' are the minority and they believe that their religion is right, they contend against the Shia, believing they are better, regardless of political power. Since they both differ in religious belief, it is impossible for one to gain the support of the other. Therefore, rather then convince the other side, a hopeless and to say the least arduous task, they fight one another. Rather then thrive to obtain a democracy, where the Sunni's may have better luck at the next/first election, they attack one another. The first thing that comes to their heads is violence and warfare. If Sunni lacks any position of power, he fights the government. Shia on the other hand, defends her crown. If it was America, one side would be trying to win over the other through principle or they would be seeking ways, through political strategy, to rise to power. These strategies may include assassination of association, or just defending ones basis of argument. American competition involves both offensive and defensive strategies in which do not resort to violence, but may be mentally straining to both sides. Through these strategies, the minority may assume power and become the majority. We act this way, without acting violently, because, we are more experienced with freedom and democracy. Don't view Iraq as hopeless though. If in fact we negotiate properly, acting as middle man to both Sunni and Shia, we may be able to attain peace in Iraq. By using political explanation in addition to infiltration of the Koran (emphasizing the belief in one God, acknowledging Muhammad as a prophet) then maybe, the conflict can be resolved. After all, communication is the key resolution. One may argue, that if religion is the most important thing in your life, you will not compromise your beliefs. This is true, however, with optimism it can be overcome. If we go in with the attitude that they will not compromise, chances are they will not compromise. We must approach peace talks, holding true to our hearts, the belief that their is one God, and Mohammad is the prophet. This is no job for an unbeliever. In addition to the main creed, we must adopt segments of the Koran which stress Love, not war. In doing this, both sides will come to the realization that war is unnecessary, thus together, we will move towards peace. These people are humans and they do have hearts. Within each heart, is the envision of "better days". Therefore, if we can befriend both sides, this strategy, may very well, work out better than expected. Reason alone will not deter their hostility. Rather, in this mission, faith, and the power of Love, is our only hope.