1 - The links I provided are only western propaganda because you disagree with what they are saying. These included a Lebanese professor at LSE who is a leading Middle East expert, Iraqi sunni politicians who worked with Maliki when he was in power, and a documentary filmmaker who interviewed a lot of people. Anyone who was in Iraq during Maliki's terms (such as myself) knows about the sectarian tensions that underpinned that period and his inability to deal with them.
2. These are only a small selection of documents that have been published. There may be more that provide an alternate perspective that you don't have access to, so rather than cherry picking things you agree with from Wikileaks or the like, it's better to look at a broader swath of information that's available from journalists, civil society, government etc. and then form a more holistic view.
3. Al-Qaeda regressed at that point not because of Maliki, but because the US were beating them into submission with intense pressure, military power, and special forces raids to disrupt AQ networks, the help of the Sons of Iraq movement, and other factors. Once the US left in late 2011, the Sunni elements who were helping tamp AQ down in Anbar and elsewhere became disillusioned with Maliki's tactics, which eventually allowed extremists to gain traction again. But the important point is that Maliki had little to do with AQ regressing up to that point - as the new Iraqi Army and Police were still in training and not fully capable of dealing with a full blown sectarian insurgency. This also includes dealing with Shi'a terrorism ranging from the Mehdi Army to Asa'ib al-Haq and others. I was in Iraq and working intimately with senior Iraqi politicians including within Maliki's inner circle of advisors. Much of his time in office was a struggle to simply accomplish basic aspects of governance much less rout Al-Qaeda.
1- First, not really. They're Western propaganda because all media in the world are propaganda machines for their governments/political directions. I wouldn't use Russian propaganda to prove a point here either, especially when we have better evidences available. Here is an Iraqi Sunni politician (a member of the parliament who belonged to the biggest Sunni bloc in Iraq) talking about Maliki:
I'm pretty sure you speak Arabic so I'm not gonna translate it for you. Notice how she makes a clear distinction between her personal opinion, based on the facts she's seeing every day, and the position of her party, which is influenced by politics and their political backers. Third, the sectarian tensions are everywhere and has nothing to do with Maliki. The cause of such tension is mainly the ideology of hate and Takfir (labelling everybody who disagrees with them as infidel 'kaffir' that must be hated/fought/killed whenever possible) that's actively spread by Saudi Arabia. Look what ISIS did to Yazidis. Maliki's fault too?
2- This is not from wikileaks. And this is not even a leak. These are documents that the US government was forced to make public because of a court order. In fact, there is much more that they refused to declassify using the excuse of 'undermining the national security of us and our allies' (which I wouldn't expect to be more kind to Saudi Arabia and Turkey and more critical of Maliki). However, even the pieces that were declassified gave a very clear description of the situation, which is completely against the propaganda that is been spread for years now. This is not cherry picking, we have a genuine document showing us how the US government really thinks, and we have propaganda trying to tell the people how the US government thinks, these are two different sets of sources of information, you can't put them on bar with each and claim that somebody is selectively cherry picking. Besides, it's not like I haven't been saying this (and providing all kinds of evidences) for years here. This document merely confirms everything I have said here, and all the articles/news I posted here for years.
3- You're merely trying to throw in your own personal opinion here. Since you have already questioned my intentions before, and questioned everything I say merely based on what you think who I am, I don't see how you expect your own personal opinion/'experiences' could throw any extra weight into the evidences involved in the discussion, especially when you have such a clear political stance. I would just ask you to read the document again and read what it gives as the primary reason for the rise of Al-Qaeda in Iraq after 2010.
And as for the Sunnis who were fighting against Al-Qaeda, many of them kept fighting against ISIS. However, they were outgunned by the support Al-Qaeda was getting from Syria, and some were eventually forced to switch sides, but many kept fighting, and the massacres against the Sunnis that happened in many places show that clearly. Here is an example:
Isis kills hundreds of Iraqi Sunnis from Albu Nimr tribe in Anbar province
Tribal militia had played prominent role in fighting al-Qaida and offshoots since 2007
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...s-hundreds-iraqi-sunnis-killed-isis-albu-nimr
And as I said before, this game of trying to use your political opponents as an excuse for Wahhabi terrorism is a dangerous game. This is not only Iraq's problem, or Syria, or Egypt, or Lebanon, or Somalia, or Nigeria, or Libya, or Bangladesh, or Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or Yemen, or France, or Belgium, or................. This is a problem the whole world is facing, and you know where the problem lies. Making excuses for people joining a terrorist ideology is a dangerous game.
)
just kidding. I just saw one myself for the first time.