How the New Administration Views Iraq’s Future

Far from the barbs, insults and provocative language that some of the writers of Kitabat speak– and in this they don’t differ from the long time users of the Buratha website – we must ensure that Iraq’s future is secured only by agreement of all Iraqis. Iraq is not represented by group of Iranian agents and servants of the occupation, even if those came to power in the Council of Representatives through no doubt unlawful means. Neither is it secured by those with inferiority complexes and the illiterate.
Saddam Hussein’s regime was ended by a brutal occupation which smashed everything the Iraqi State built during the decades of its existence. History will not forgive the White House for its crime of destroying a country that is thousands of miles away from the United States and never once posed an armed or ideological threat to it. Iraq never owned nuclear warheads or weapons of mass destruction, the presence of which constantly spread around as lies and then used as a pretext for aggression. If the national resistance had not succeeded in rattling the occupation’s forces and causing them to suffer scandalous material and human losses, then the world would have known a new form of military alliance that the strong states can apply to destroy other countries. If not for the courageous resistance, then John McCain’s dream and promise from last July 15th, “I've always said (the American forces) will come home with honor and with victory and not through a set timetable.”
Despite the attempts to distort it, the heroic Iraqi resistance alone preserved the dignity of Iraqis in this world. It did this despite the explosions that killed innocents in markets, streets, and cafes. Behind those acts were groups specially trained by the Americans to cause strife, Iranians in order to increase their influence and extremist Islamists from the bloody groups of the American Bin Laden (the American Secretary of Defense Gates was one of Bin Laden’s supporters during President Carter’s time).
Iraq’s future won’t be forged by those surrounded by security men, and who listen to the coterie of “advisors” and preachers in the mosques and Shiite community centers, or those poor souls who call themselves experts in the fields of politics and media. The “new leaders” believed their own fantasies that the Iraqis would shed their blood cheaply for them.
In reality, there is no “Supreme Council [for the Islamic Revolution]”, because Muhsin Al-Hakim’s family, which is deeply involved in betraying the Iraqis, is itself the council, and it inherited his position of prestige. As for the rest of the “Council,” they are a mafia that answers to (American) dollars and (Iranian) tomans, killers of prisoners and partners with the Iranian forces in a war against Iraq. The word “Islam” should not be applied to them, for how can one who betrays his country be God-fearing and devout? And what of the statements of the so-called “[Ali] Al-Dabbagh” and his attempts to bury the role of the great martyrs in defending the country during the war with Iran, and his attempt to exonerate the agents (of Iran) and remove from them the accusation of grand treason?
Our new rulers avoid confronting the present and the near future by raising the slogans that they became addicted to during the days of “the opposition of the hotels and trenches.” Nothing has changed from the time they called for “liberating Iraq” as they sat in the operations centers of Iranian army or in the intelligence services’ offices in London and Washington. Now they claim to have sovereignty, and seek another flag – even though I don’t prefer the old flag with the phrase “Allahu Akbar” which recalls the battle of Siffin, and the brandishing of pages of the Koran, and the time of the Islamic invasions – but they can’t make a decision or move a military unit armed only with rifles without the occupation force’s approval!
The near future was charted by a circle very close to Barack Obama, the new president of the United States, and experts and political analysts. Obama approved it. The political analyst Chris Toensing summarized this in an article published by “The Nation” magazine a few months ago, and you can read the entire article at the following URL: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080721/toensing.
The article confirms that the most important factor for the stability of Iraq is to realize national reconciliation. The new administration will pressure the government in Baghdad (or “force it” to use the correct language) to hold a national conference, attended by all parties, among them the “insurgents” and “Sadrists.” The American government should also aim at building Iraq and compensate hurt Iraqis, because that will improve the image of the United States in the world. But will the insurgents accept sitting at the same table with the agents of the occupation?
The insurgents alone have that answer, and they alone hold the key to stability.