Security Agreement butNo Security! What About After the Withdrawal?

When American occupation forces stepped on the ground in Iraq in 2003 after the fall of the tyrant Saddam, they did so not seeking to liberate Iraq, as they announced and claimed. The fact became apparent that they only entered to sow sedition among the ranks of the Iraqi people, under the umbrella of freedom and the realization of independence — to destroy Iraq's infrastructure and transplant America’s disgraceful western culture, which is widespread in the countries of Europe. The occupation forces worked on spreading out into the cities and districts of Iraq, citing what they called the security agreement. This was, in reality, not secure, and the Iraqis under its shadow did not experience the true meaning of safety and peace. Throughout this security agreement, Iraq witnessed the ugliest forms of destruction, killing, terrorism, ugly discord and decrees from non-believers that did not receive God's sanction for power. I painted a black page of the painful history of Iraq. … There are many questions that inspire the minds of the people of Iraq.

Why did the Americans enter Iraq? What did the security agreement, signed between the Iraqi government and the United States, achieve during this particular period? What will be Iraq's condition after the withdrawal of American forces?

The majority of political science theorists and thinkers talk of the entry of the American forces into Iraq as part of a strategic plan prepared 12 years beforehand — to change the regime and replace it with another serving their own interests; to drain Iraq’s plentiful riches, including black gold (oil); to change Iraq’s cultural landscape and drain its rich achievements in science and knowledge; and inspire the spirit of sedition and sectarianism among Iraq’s sons. Indeed, America also planned to make Iraq one of its mandates … for despite the cohesion of the sons of Iraq, America was able to [get] between them and obscure part of the map of national unity, desiring to empty its venom. However, the Iraqis were able to quickly — through their magnanimity and cohesion — and successfully treat this cut caused by the occupation forces. Moreover, they went back to being one bloc, despite the difficulties, thanks to several Islamic scholars and experts in state power.

As for the security agreement, it was not secure, according to its intended meaning, since it did not realize the goals of the people of Iraq. The American regiments spread throughout the majority of Iraq’s cities and districts were always hand in glove concerning the text of the agreement. Among its other breaches, America did not comply to Article 24 (second paragraph) of the agreement, which confined the right to enter the cities and provinces of Iraq during a limited period: “All United States combat forces shall withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages and localities no later than the time at which Iraqi Security Forces assume full responsibility for security in an Iraqi province, provided that such withdrawal is completed no later than June 30, 2009.”

In addition, Article 27 talks about supporting Iraq in deterring security threats. Yet we saw the polar opposite of this. Article 27 states: “In order to strengthen security and stability in Iraq and to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and stability, the Parties shall work actively to strengthen the political and military capabilities of the Republic of Iraq to deter threats against its sovereignty, political independence, territorial integrity and its constitutional federal democratic system. To that end, the Parties agree as follows:

“In the event of any external or internal threat or aggression against Iraq that would violate its sovereignty, political independence or territorial integrity, waters, airspace, its democratic system or its elected institutions, and upon request by the Government of Iraq, the Parties shall immediately initiate strategic deliberations and, as may be mutually agreed, the United States shall take appropriate measures, including diplomatic, economic or military measures, or any other measure, to deter such a threat.”

Yet U.S. forces did not support the Iraqi forces in stamping out terrorism. Rather, America worked on sowing discontent between the unified people and supported terrorism in order to incite sectarian differences between the sons of the people. It worked to transfer and arrest innocent citizens who committed no crime, most of the time with fabricated accusations. The Iraqis did not reap anything from the security agreement other than disappointment and sorrow. Unfortunately, the American forces achieved many of their goals, but they absolutely did not change Iraq’s situation. Rather, they violated its exhibits, blew up its museums, exhumed its relics and divided its sects. The Iraqi people did not witness a noticeable advantage but recalled that their situation grew worse. Everyone is asking what will happen after the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, according to what is found in the security agreement.

Yes, the evil forces withdrew from Iraq according to the aforementioned text of the agreement. However, the situation in Iraq did not improve ([American] presence did not enrich, nor did it avail hunger). Yet their departure is better and, in turn, it strengthens the national sovereignty of Iraq and solves many crises. The reigns of central and local power are controlled without blatant interference leading to a change in decision-making. We hope that the Iraqis work together for the sake of a unified country — for the sake of keeping a smile on the faces of the innocent, for a decent life for the families of the martyrs, for a new morning with a gorgeous sunrise and a pure breath of air … and peace.