Back in 2003, Gen. Tommy Franks, who was the commander of the U.S. forces invading Iraq, had told the press that he named the ongoing operation "Iraqi Freedom." It is hard to know what kind of freedom it was, as the majority of American troops had not left the country until 2012, and even today there are hundreds of U.S. military personnel in the country. In the early days of the military operation, however, the U.S. had announced that their presence would be short and they did not intend to stay longer than necessary.

As we remember what happened in the years following the invasion, one can honestly say that the operation has brought little freedom to Iraqis. As a matter of fact, the U.S. invasion has provoked an ethnic and sectarian quasi civil war in the country. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden recently visited Iraq and their declarations demonstrate that Washington is well aware of this situation.

U.S. officials have confirmed that Baghdad is still not safe, not even to spend one night. The new political elite is incapable of keeping Iraqis together and Northern Iraq's Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) believes it can follow its own destiny.

These declarations give the feeling that Iraq is on its way toward partition. We know that DAESH controls large parts of Iraq already. In Baghdad, Shiite protesters stormed the parliament building, one government is following another without fixing anything and the people criticize the politicians of being fundamentally corrupt.

DAESH is naturally using this clouded political atmosphere to reinforce its position. Because of the political crisis reigning in Baghdad, there is no hope for a unified front to fight agains

t DAESH and retake the territory under their control.

DAESH is not only targeting Shiites, but also Kurds. Paradoxically, DAESH's attacks on Shiites is indirectly helping the Iraqi Kurds to declare their independence, as everybody sees the Baghdad government is inefficient. In the meantime, the U.S. gives ambiguous messages, which can be seen as covert support to the KRG's ambitions. It gives the impression that it would be sufficient for the U.S. to keep the KRG as an ally, and then it can forget about the rest of Iraq.

DAESH is not only important for the future of Iraq, but also for the future of Syria, but the situation is a little different there. In Syria, DAESH has indirectly helped Bashar Assad's regime and has transformed the Syrian Kurds into the regime's allies. The similarity is that if Syria eventually collapses totally and Syrian Kurds gain their independence, they will become, like the Iraqi Kurds, American allies. In other words, the U.S. is saying the same in Syria, that the Kurds will be enough for them. The problem in Syria is the Russian presence. Because of this the U.S. is seeking an agreement with Russia, and cannot act there as freely as it does in Iraq.

Perhaps the U.S. will promise Russia and Iran that they will preserve some influence over the Baghdad and Damascus governments. Under this condition, Russia may allow the Syrian Kurds to become the U.S.'s strategic partners.Since the last decade, the U.S. has completely changed the regional balance through its actions, sometimes provoking pure chaos. It proved unable to impose its will on all players and could not correct the situation. Now it seems, it will be happy just with what it can get. Is there any strategic vision? What is sure is by its attitude is that the U.S. is simply losing the trust of its traditional allies.