Is the U.S. Handling Iraq Irresponsibly?

Before, when Saddam bragged about weapons of mass destruction, Americans were worried. Under that pretext, George W. Bush seized Iraq. The U.S. Army searched for a long time, but never found weapons of mass destruction. President Bush and Prime Minister Blair were both ridiculed in domestic public opinion polls.

Many people think that the American war in Iraq was all about oil. Of course, the U.S. government will not acknowledge this argument. Without the discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the legitimacy of the U.S.-British attack diminished.

Surprisingly, even though the U.S. Army was able to establish new elections for the government, they were unable to maintain tranquility in the streets. Because American businessmen know that Iraq is not peaceful and is a risky place to visit, they feel it is not worthwhile. In contrast, other countries — like China — view Iraq as a positive investment. The U.S. media consequently lamented that U.S. troops in Iraq have practically turned into bodyguards for multinational oil developers.

President Obama's halo following his receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize made it feasible for him to almost completely withdraw the 50,000 U.S. troops stationed in Iraq at the end of August.

The response to the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops has varied: Some are really happy, and some are unhappy. Opinions tend to be polarized; the effect is similar to that of a father and son riding a donkey. If U.S. troops do not withdraw from Iraq, Iraqi nationalists will accuse them of trying to colonize Iraq. If U.S. troops withdraw, Iraqis will immediately accuse the United States of being irresponsible.

Former Iraqi Prime Minister Tariq Aziz believes the Americans are acting irresponsibly. In Iraqi polls, 40 percent of people share this view. The international community also believes that it is irresponsible to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. Then, in reality, is it unfair to Iraq to withdraw? The view of Iraqi authorities and the Iraqi people shows that they have no faith!

The justification of this view, according to media reports, is that the "nation has ignored Iraq's new government, sectarian conflicts are unceasing, and the country is facing a state of division.” With that said, the United States still adhered to their end-of-August deadline to withdraw troops, which, unfortunately, only demonstrates the irresponsibility of America’s Iraq policy.

Clearly, the Iraqi prime minister does not agree with this view. According to media reports:

"Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said on August 31 that after the end of American combat operations in Iraq, Iraq will continue to 'achieve independence,’ and that the Iraqi military will now be responsible for addressing all threats, both foreign and domestic. Maliki delivered a televised speech on Tuesday to commemorate the change in function of the U.S. military into auxiliary forces and Iraqi army advisers. Maliki said, 'Today's Iraq has become a sovereign and independent country.'"

Maliki's remarks reflect the aspirations of the Iraqi people. Iraq cannot always rely on U.S. combat troops. Eventually, Iraq will need a military force to maintain its own internal security. Iraq only has to show that it can take care of itself and its people in order to promote the U.S. Army's withdrawal.

Of course, right now the complete withdrawal of U.S. combat troops seems premature, but one cannot go through wind and rain without seeing a rainbow. The Iraqi military ought to cast off their dependence on the United States soon. After the U.S. military's withdrawal from Iraq, there may be some short-term domestic unrest. But in the long run, this is more conducive for the development of the Iraqi government. Otherwise, if the U.S. military is late in their withdrawal, the Iraqi government will find it difficult to rid themselves of suspicions that it is only a puppet regime.