The Occupiers will not Withdraw from Iraq

The Americans say that they will not withdraw from Iraq until they achieve victory, but victory for them is a movable thing, its reasons and its motivations differing from stage to stage: At the beginning victory meant overthrowing the adversarial regime of Saddam Hussein and replacing it with a government favorable to Washington; then victory became routing the followers of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the forces resisting the occupation, i.e. defeating the Iraqi people and subduing the forces of resistance and Arab affiliation; then the matter developed and victory came to mean supporting the new regime in Iraq, and training the new Iraqi Army and new security forces to be able to impose security in Iraq; then victory became linked to confronting terrorism in Iraq and the Middle East, including the forces of terrorism controlled by the Iranian regime that jeopardizes the American presence in Iraq, complicates the American project in the Middle East, threatens through its nuclear armament the state of Israel, and imperils the stability of the oil region and sea routes for the oil trade.

Thus there is no real meaning to the recently-announced Iraqi calls to link the security agreement between Iraq and Washington with achieving a timetable for American withdrawal from Iraq, because the unshakable truth, which all experts and those concerned with the Iraq issue confirm, is that the United States will not withdraw from Iraq, whether or not it settles on a legal framework with the Iraqi government— which protects itself with the occupation— to allow the occupation of Iraq to continue after the end of the current year. Washington will find a pretext to keep its forces in Iraq whatever the position of the Iraqi people or government, and it may reduce its forces in order to replace military units, but a complete withdrawal is not forthcoming.

The demand for a timetable for American withdrawal serves the image of the Iraqi government in front of its Arab brethren at this stage. The desire at this stage is to deal with Iraq as if the long-term occupation is the natural order and to ensure the continuation of the new Iraq as is the case in Palestine. The desire is to treat the Israeli occupation with the notion that it is a natural part of the general scene in Palestine, to the extent that it is presumed that elections in Palestine and Iraq would never be fair, except under occupation. These are the ideas being marketed to the Arabs: democracy and sovereignty under occupation; political solutions rather than a lack of occupation being necessary to succeed; and considering resistance to the occupation to be terrorism and an international crime. Thus relations between Washington and Iran are increasingly strained, with military threats exchanged between Washington and Israel on one side and the Iranian regime on the other side. The outcome will be the United States lingering in Iraq through an occupation that is necessary to secure Iraq, the Middle East, and Israel, while conditions on the ground do not allow exposing the gains which Washington pretends to have achieved in Iraq to risk.

Thus Washington, according to the official White House spokesman, refuses to agree to a phony timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, refuses to set an arbitrary date to withdraw, and refuses to admit that its stance recklessly shapes the fate of Iraq and the region. Straining the atmosphere with Iran serves to keep the military in Iraq for the long term, and transforms Iraq into a long-term military strike base, primarily to penetrate the depths of the Arab world, seize it from the inside and control the Gulf region and Eastern Arabia to repel the Iranian danger and prevent the restoration of cohesion in Iraq. This serves to protect Israel and its interests, and allows control over the oil region from the shores of the Black Sea and Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf. This is not just the goal of the current administration in Washington, but the determined strategic goal of any coming American administration, whatever the proposals of the candidates in the current election.

Washington stipulates the conditions which it considers for victory in Iraq, how to achieve it, and the goals linked to this victory at each stage. Victory means seizing military control in Iraq and conveying to the Arabs that dealing with the Washington-aligned government is the natural order, notwithstanding the widespread destruction, ruin, occupation, anarchy, looting, displacement, and killing which befall the Iraqi people.

Americans will not withdraw from Iraq however stable the security situation, and will find pretexts at every stage to refuse to withdraw. They entered Iraq, occupied it, and destroyed the country on deceptive pretexts violating international law, and they will remain in Iraq by the same mostly-fabricated pretexts. The inflated Iranian danger serves their continuation in Iraq, serves Israel which pictures itself the victim in the world, and serves to remove Iraq from its community, thus weakening it. It reinforces the most important support inside Arab lines and keeps the Arab region vulnerable to regional conflicts and divisions which vindicate the claims of the occupiers.