To Those Who Reject The American Withdrawal
Actually, Im not very surprised at the positions of some of the political blocs which reject the Iraqi-American agreement, which was changed from being called the "security" agreement to the "withdrawal" agreement.
In itself, it is a great accomplishment, but we blame the masses, who brought those parliamentarians to the Council of Representatives bench only to squander their opportunity. It reached the point that they attacked the very democracy which brought them to a position where they have the ability to decide the fate of many citizens. They behaved in a way that does not befit a country that suffered under the repression of a dictatorial system.
Those who reject the agreement hold an oft-repeated position, not new to the Iraqi situation. In addition, we notice that the Sadrist movement always rejects everything, whether positive or negative, as if it wants a return to Baath rule or to impose soldiers in opposition to the majority opinion.
As for the security agreement, there are many political powers that have reservations about it. Nevertheless, they took a democratic position and dealt with it in a civilized manner unlike some of the members of the Sadrist bloc, who drummed on the tables in Parliament as if they wanted to return to the time when they did their dances. Those who acted recklessly formed a black stain on the shirt of democracy.
In my opinion, the security agreement is the best available alternative as far as the Iraqi people are concerned. Although I take issue with some of the details, I believe it does not infringe on Iraqi sovereignty. It is a timetable for the American occupation, that timetable which was requested years ago by those who call themselves the "resistance."
The importance of the agreement is the withdrawal of the American forces from the country. The important gains that the Iraqi negotiators achieved from the American side are sizable and merit praise. This agreement resulted in the organization of the occupiers exit from the country, not the remaining of the forces, as some parties have circulated. I ask on this occasion: Is there another alternative or substitute to what is on the table?
The most important benefits of the agreement are:
1. It includes a gradual withdrawal of the American forces from Iraq to end the period of occupation, which is an accomplishment for a country with institutions and a constitution.
2. After the signing of the agreement, we now have authority over the American forces, whereas before they had authority over matters. With that, we now have the capability to build a strong Iraqi army able to defend the unity of Iraq and its federal government.
If we do not sign the agreement, our fate is unclear and we cannot predict where it will lead.
In itself, it is a great accomplishment, but we blame the masses, who brought those parliamentarians to the Council of Representatives bench only to squander their opportunity. It reached the point that they attacked the very democracy which brought them to a position where they have the ability to decide the fate of many citizens. They behaved in a way that does not befit a country that suffered under the repression of a dictatorial system.
Those who reject the agreement hold an oft-repeated position, not new to the Iraqi situation. In addition, we notice that the Sadrist movement always rejects everything, whether positive or negative, as if it wants a return to Baath rule or to impose soldiers in opposition to the majority opinion.
As for the security agreement, there are many political powers that have reservations about it. Nevertheless, they took a democratic position and dealt with it in a civilized manner unlike some of the members of the Sadrist bloc, who drummed on the tables in Parliament as if they wanted to return to the time when they did their dances. Those who acted recklessly formed a black stain on the shirt of democracy.
In my opinion, the security agreement is the best available alternative as far as the Iraqi people are concerned. Although I take issue with some of the details, I believe it does not infringe on Iraqi sovereignty. It is a timetable for the American occupation, that timetable which was requested years ago by those who call themselves the "resistance."
The importance of the agreement is the withdrawal of the American forces from the country. The important gains that the Iraqi negotiators achieved from the American side are sizable and merit praise. This agreement resulted in the organization of the occupiers exit from the country, not the remaining of the forces, as some parties have circulated. I ask on this occasion: Is there another alternative or substitute to what is on the table?
The most important benefits of the agreement are:
1. It includes a gradual withdrawal of the American forces from Iraq to end the period of occupation, which is an accomplishment for a country with institutions and a constitution.
2. After the signing of the agreement, we now have authority over the American forces, whereas before they had authority over matters. With that, we now have the capability to build a strong Iraqi army able to defend the unity of Iraq and its federal government.
If we do not sign the agreement, our fate is unclear and we cannot predict where it will lead.