On entering Baghdad in March 1917, the brilliant Lt-General Sir Frederick Maude proclaimed: "our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators". In another part of the dying Ottoman Empire that December, General Edmund "Bull" Allenby walked into Jerusalem in what some would say was the last Crusade.
France and Great Britain created Iraq after World War One, where its borders were drawn without regard for sectarian or religious lines. It is a Middle Eastern Yugoslavia except our 15-year commitment in Bosnia only started when Yugoslavia had fractured.
In reaction to 'Have we underestimated ISIS?' a reader called Poppy asked; "...what does Mr Mark suggest we do? There's basically 2 options - 1) leave them to it, or 2) oppose them..."
We should let nature take its course backed with strong containment. Harsh and irresponsible? Not according to Professor Posen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who again persuasively argues, "the escalating civil war in Iraq, and the increasingly likely de facto partition of the country, should be assessed from first principles. The United States spent enormous amounts of treasure and considerable blood trying to turn Iraq into a functioning multi-ethnic democracy; this effort failed. The costs are sunk. Our analysis must begin from the present: We are being asked to pay new costs and bear new burdens. For what and with what hope of success?"
Applying geopolitical Darwinism may not be as reckless as it first may seem and I recommend the Prime Minister read Professor Posen's book called Restraint. Perhaps it is better to let the boundaries of Syria and Iraq reform along natural tribal, ethnic and religious lines.
The breakup of Yugoslavia was incredibly painful and included an appalling failure of the United Nations at Srebrenica. Yet what exists in its place is infinitely better and is far more stable than some artificially created state on international life support.
A past head of MI6 counter-terrorism, Richard Barrett, was recently quoted in an excellent Singaporean article succinctly outlining how complicated this is: "[ISIS] offers those living under its rule better governance in some respects than they received from the state before it took over.
Corruption is far less prevalent, and justice, albeit brutal, is swift and more evenly applied. The policy challenge is therefore not to seek the destruction of the caliphate so much as to promote its transformation into something that the Syrian and Iraqi people, along with the rest of us, could live with".
So what is the alternative? In Iraq, Shiite militias are more popular to join than its failed national army. Massively complicating this is a resurgent Iran, nuclear programme and all. Iran is providing money, arms and support to these Shiite militias and may see this as a final resolution of the Iran/Iraq war.
Even the troops of the 16th Division, our men and women are training at the Taji base, come from a unit that was originally transferred from the Kurdistan Regional Government.
