Fourth sentence should be revised to something like “The British and Americans failed to adequately study Iraqi society before entering the country.” It might also help to add in there what they should have studied. Also, I can see where it would lead to a distorted view, but what was the stereotype we had? May want to add that and explain specifically how they made things more dangerous – I don’t see where that’s mentioned but it’s important.

Sentence should read “does not change its strategy soon, we will …” instead of what’s there.

The word Stablized should be spelled Stabilized.

I would organize this in a “compare-contrast” format (comparing what is similar and contrasting what is different). There are two ways you can do this:

1. Mention something the British did in one sentence, and then mention something America is doing now in the next. Use past tense for the British and present tense for America, unless America has already completed the thing in question (in which case you’d use past tense). Repeat this until you run out of points.

2. Make a paragraph about the British involvement with Iraq. Then make a separate paragraph about the American involvement with Iraq. This might be easier, plus you won’t end up with a super long paragraph.

Whichever of these you choose, it is a good idea to address counterarguments; this means contrasting the U.S. and Britain. You want to show that even though the U.S. is doing something different than Britain, it will still fail because of these things. If that’s too abstract, here’s an example (I don’t know how factually accurate it is):

Some say that the United States can establish democracy in Iraq [because it is a country made up of different ethnic groups, whereas 20th century Britain was not] (this is the contrast). However, this is not true, because [place argument here].

“Iraqis” needs no apostrophe. This is a common mistake, but easily fixed.

Spell out things like WWI and U.S. the first time you use them, if not every time.

Have fun!

May God bless you.