• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Bulletin
  • Privacy policy

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Social protection
    • Poverty & wellbeing
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • Indicators
    • Learning
    • M&E approaches
Home»GSDRC Publications»Contemporary conflict analysis of Iraq

Contemporary conflict analysis of Iraq

Conflict Analysis
  • Brigitte Rohwerder
October 2014

This paper notes that conflict in Iraq has become increasingly sectarian, and has affected minorities the most. Among its findings it highlights roots of the violence: Sunni alienation following the ‘sectarianisation’ of the political system; feelings of insecurity as a result of sectarian militias and the increasingly Shia make-up of the Iraqi Security Forces; and structural tensions including lack of services and jobs and discrimination against minorities.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq left a legacy of violence and a political system which was increasingly used by political leaders for sectarian advantage. After a period of relative stability, violence increased in Iraq during 2014, to levels last seen during the sectarian conflict in 2006/7. Since the beginning of 2014, an extreme jihadist group ISIL/Da’esh, who are also active in Syria, has gained control of territory in the mainly Sunni and contested areas of Iraq including Kirkuk, Diyala, Anbar, Salah al Din and Ninewa. As of October 2014, the fighting has caused the internal displacement of 1.8 million people and there are 5.2 million who need urgent humanitarian assistance.

Recommendations for action emerging from the literature include: i) use ideas to combat ISIL/Da’esh; ii) do not give in to a sectarian narrative; iii) address the underlying issues; iv) address the conflict in Syria v) make ISF and other institutions inclusive; vi) recognise minority rights; vii) clarify the status of disputed territories; viii) deal with militias and human rights abuses; ix) develop an inclusive regional security structure; x) cut off support to ISIL/Da’esh; and xi) provide conflict-sensitive military support.

Enquirer:

  • European Union

Suggested citation

Rohwerder, B. (2014). Contemporary conflict analysis of Iraq (Rapid Literature Review). Birmingham, UK: GSDRC,University of Birmingham.

Related Content

Role of Faith and Belief in Environmental Engagement and Action in MENA Region
Helpdesk Report
2021
Promotion of Freedom of Religion or Belief
Helpdesk Report
2021
Trends in Conflict and Stability in the Indo-Pacific
Literature Review
2021
Challenges Religious Minorities Face in Accessing Humanitarian Assistance
Helpdesk Report
2019
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2023; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2023; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2023
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2023; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2023; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2023