If I’m not mistaken (and I may be) both Afghanistan and Iraq are “Islamic republics,” meaning that there are certain restrictions against non-Muslims built into their constitutions. So, Christians may be free to worship, but they are restricted from exercising power. On paper, at least, non-Muslims were freer under Hussein, because his government was secular.
As far as “violent groups” terrorizing non-Muslims, I suspect the government doesn’t do much to reign them in.
As I have said, Muslims certainly want to be free. Everybody wants to be free. Nobody disputes that. But, sometimes they just want to be “free” to be the oppressor, rather than the oppressed.
Your presumption that all Muslims want to be oppressors is quite stunning, and it is contrary to some of the other things you have said about them.
The success of the present Iraqi government relative to the tribalism of the area, it's warring history, and the hostile influence of alQaeda and Iran is historic and profound. Your choice to minimize the significance in order to place all Muslims under the same blanket of oppressor is duly noted. I wonder how the subjegation of and brutal treatment of women fits into your scenario. I truly doubt that the women of Iraq and Afghanistan want to be oppressors, but if you're going to put all Muslims into a single category, I suppose women have to be there too....