pacific on c-span. watch any time at c-span.org, where you can find video of past prime minister's questions and other readers public affairs programs. british public affairs programs. discussion by a about how the situation in iraq could impact u.s. gas prices. after that, a heritage foundation forum on oversight of the united nations. >> now you can keep in touch with current events from the nation's capital using any phone, anytime. simply call 202-626-8888. listen to a recap of the day's events at 5:00 p.m. eastern on washington today. you can also hear audio of the five networks sunday public affairs programs beginning

sunday at noon eastern. 202-626-8888. long-distance or other charges may apply. >> american task force on palestine holds a forum to assess the escalating violence in iraq. begins at 9:00 a.m. eastern on 2. pan >> lawrence strickland heads the national telecommunications and information administration. he talks about domain names shifting from u.s. government control to one supervised by an international multi-stakeholder group. >> the clinton administration determined that they wanted to move the operation that names a system out of the federal government and privatize it. what we announced in march recently the completion of what started in 1990 eight, which was to complete that privatization. >> monday night at 8:00 eastern

on the communicators on c-span2. >> next, look at the history of iraq and the sunnis, shiites and kurds. from washington journal, this is about 40 minutes. we continue on this sunday , aning with shibley telhami professor, and the author of the world through arab eyes. we appreciate you being with us. back,t to take a step because we have been hearing so much about the sunnis and the shias. we thought it would the interesting to give our audience a lesson into this conflict that that dates back to the seventh century. guest: as a cautionary note, to understand that a lot of these divisions are the logical, and the principal political -- theological, and in principle,

political. when the prophet mohammed died, there was a battle over succession. the majority selected the successor, there was a minority , also hisd his cousin son-in-law, to succeed him. means the party of valley, from that beginning. it was a battle of succession that flared up into a battle for iraq. of hussein, who was also the expected successor, was killed. from that point on you had this very deep divide in his long.

still, there were very much a minority in the muslim world, as they are today. if you look at over the billion muslims in the world, the shia represent 20% of the total muslim population. even in places where they are a majority, and that is not that is very light. into -- enronand did not become a shia state over 15 centuries, it was like the rest of the muslim world. , where we now have the shia majority, over 60% of the

population, that's shia majority also did not expand until much he 18th,ntil bt 19th, and 20th centuries. many of them were political and economic reasons. that isthis fissure deeply divided throughout the centuries. every step of the way we had bloodshed a confrontation -- and confrontation. togetheristed and live for a well at different stages. they just consider themselves muslims. there are times when the conflict was bloody, and you see especially when they are trying to establish the central authority. everyone has multiple identity, and the question is which one do you embrace? interestingly, you suggested

that we would talk about the shia and the kurds. mostly sunni muslim, and yet we talk about them as a separate group because they are a separate sect. they have a different ethnicity, and yet we do not lump them with sunnis because they are allied in thee shias government and the coalition interest. the fact that you have some sunnis in coalition with these ias, tells you part of the story. headline, of another in the shiite heartland

setraq, volunteers get for defensive jihad. whot: you have the kurds are sunni but not involved in the fighting. , and justbout 25% west of baghdad all the way north to this iraq and syrian border, the u.s. was having a lot of trouble because most of the sunni arabs lost their l elite status that they had dating back to the inception of the iraqi state, when it became onarchy. laterrtainly in the

years, when saddam hussein took hold until he was overthrown in 2003. even during that time, one of the things that is not clear, now the party that is associated with the sunni elite had a majority of shia members, and only later did that change. and when the u.s. took over in 2003 after the iraq war, if you'll recall the u.s. just repeated what was called the deck of cards, the 52 most ed withpeople association w saddam hussein. the majority were shia, not sunni, which tells you something about these aren't. as for what is happening now, the problem is not just the sunnis being disenfranchised in the new iraq meant that has been hasbattle that the u.s.

faced with the maliki government that is principally shia with an alliance with the kurds and .eaving out the sunnis while most iraqi arabs essentially want to have their voices heard him and they want a piece of iraq, you have this who considers everyone who disagrees with them as heretical. inse are the islamic states syria thatia -- and is ruthless. they have basically allied themselves with the enemy of my enemies, not an embrace of these radical and extremist, but they want their voices heard.

is that youpened have these extreme militant groupsical ruthless succeeding, which terrifies everyone else and the outside world of what might result is a product of these militants who have no place for anyone who disagrees with them. guests onelcome our c-span radio. to your calls in just a moment. you can also send this in e-mail to journal@c-span.org. with you anhare yo ad from the new york times from 10 years ago.

barack is a deeply divided society that the u.s. would have to occupy and police for many years to create a viable state. al qaeda poses a greater threat to the u.s. and thus iraq -- then does iraq. war with iraq will jeopardize the compare against al qaeda by diverting resources and attention from that campaign and by increasing anti-americanism around the globe. guest: there were 33 scholars, realist, people who are open to some wars that are in our national interest. it was a good idea to have this added organized because a lot of people confused you conservatives and realist -- neoconservatives and realists.

is adjusted we put our money where our mouth was in this case by people who write op-ed like me. we thought it was very important to go on the record to state and put it the way it is, that if go ahead anin iraq, it would be pablo maddock down the road. -- problematic down the road. there's no question in my mind that what we see is not so much sectarianism per se, but as of the collapse of the state. sectarianism,he and it has roots, and people ask liked it, and there are a lot of

strategic layers who benefit ,rom having sectarian conflicts especially saudi arabia and iran are waging wars for influence. but nevertheless, you would not have had it had you not had the state collapse, particularly the disintegration of the iraqi army. think, ther they collapse of the army seems to be a graver mistake if these groups take hold. islamic state of iraq and syria, whatever you argue about what happens in iraq for my even without them winning the war, and they probably could not win the war because they are outnumbered, and they have a basically, they are threatened and frightened by

them. imagine a situation without them and with a iraq, global agenda and controlling some of the oil revenues that give them resources and money to influence events outside, that is something that is quite dangerous, far more dangerous than even saddam hussein was to america. host: cynthia, independent line. caller: good morning. good morning, professor. three months after we are rate ciaaded iraq, the the law we violated by attacking a country

that did not attack us. it encourage more terrorism. weeks before saddam hussein was hong, he sent a message to the iraqi people to not fight among each other. i found this very profound. been inter-fighting for many years, but we did not discourage it. themything we encouraged to fight among each other. guest: saddam hussein was a many do dictator, and not want him, regardless. but there's no question in my mind that the iraq war was the singular most devastating event in recent american history for americans national interest. anause it really wasted historic opportunity for the united states to assert itself

globally. in the 1990's, they were the decade of american influence and dominance following the end of the cold war. the u.s. had resources, and yes they were attacked horrifically -- in 2001, but they could have reacted differently. americathe anger with and the diversion of resources has affected us very negatively globally, and we're still paying the price. line, goodlican morning. caller: it was nice that we had someone from johns hopkins --

host: university of maryland. sorry. i am trying to be positive this morning. these suggestions have been tried before. maybe this is the time that this would work. one, the americans pay the sunnis that have been [indiscernible] before, according to their rank. thatecond suggestion is saudi and kuwait fund the isis. since they have agreed in the past to take those people that were in gitmo, and collected off

,he battlefields in afghanistan and our retention centers overseas, back to their them, is to reeducate am wondering if they could do and play the same role that they had played before. fighters offe isis the field in a rack, and into , if thatducation camps would perhaps, like the ,eakettle that tends to boil up if that could be a construct to of things so that a lot could get through of a remedial

process if they had any chance of continuing to be a continuous country. the proper course is not reeducation. the problem is having voices heard. i think when you look back, the american occupation, whatever happened after 2003, if there was going to be a chance at all it was to figure out a way to bring all iraqi factions together in a new iraq. debt, everyonese recognizes dismantling the government was a mistake. so nowoo late for that, is a question of how do you do it? in the years when the u.s. was here and was a manpower in iraq, there were some that were more successful.

they were reaching out to sunni tribes, and they understood that they wanted their voices heard. to give themed support, and find a way for them to be engaged and take them away in iraq.aeda most part they succeeded. they would have had to be some structural changes that kept them in play throughout the and i think it is too late for that. wanted, can heou stally reach out to mop sunnis were not happy with the iraqi state and syria? werewere not people who

intolerant. ending, buta happy is a case where people rallied behind the ending of my enemy -- enemy to haven their voices heard. that is the game that people play. also a senior fellow at the brookings institution. he has written a number of books. one of our viewers says this, insanity is doing the same thing, expecting different h regards to sending those advisers to iraq. this is from laurent, who says it has been terrible. what foreign policy

, and arlene says president obama is doing the best job possible with the cars that have been dealt to him and under the wings of the advisers who surround him. one must always keep in mind that there are many press polities and powers of the larger equation and he is just one leader doing his job conscientiously. democrat line, good morning. caller: good morning. for coming to c-span this morning, i appreciate your knowledge and history in iraq. are you there? guest: yes. caller: unfortunately, we are so dependent on fossil fuels. i am wondering, how much of our oil comes from iraq? host: thank you for your call. we will be focusing on oil

production in about 20 minutes. independence on even middle eastern oil has dramatically declined. depend onnd the world oil, and will for a long time to come. it is not where you get your oil, it is that we are all sipping from the same cup them and therefore when the price,, when there is less oil coming out of the middle east, it is higher for the entire market. it is not so much as what we get from iraq and the middle east am a it is that the world market is dependent on oil from the middle east because the middle east has the largest oil reserves. that is likely to continue for many years to come.