The Political Powers in Iraq

The facts clearly show that American policy has been floundering, using egotistical solutions to problems it did not successfully analyze beforehand. This happened because the American administration excelled in planning for war, but did not plan for what would happen afterwards. So the policy of division, with which it wanted to build, ended up as a policy of destruction in all phases. If that policy succeeded in South America, it failed miserably in Iraq and almost completely wiped out the American project, especially after the United States used the controversial political personality, Ambassador Zalmai (Khalilzad), who tried to transfer the Afghani experiment to Iraq.

He tried with all his power to find a class of warlords in Iraq, just as the case in Afghanistan, which was the result of the society’s makeup and the nature of the conflict between the centers of power there. His goal in these efforts was to find a class of Iraqi politicians from different sectors of the Iraqi people with whom he would be able to move in the directions he saw fit in order to create a state of permanent tension among the citizens of one nation. While the Iraqi resistance prevented this failure from being dragged to the abyss, Zalmai let an entire year pass without fulfilling any achievements on the ground. Instead, he committed a number of errors which pushed many political powers to ask for his expulsion from Iraq.

Under the leadership of Professor Maliki, the project for national reconciliation had begun. National reconciliation was among the priorities of his government. He exerted every effort to bring the process to maturity despite all20the obstacles that are produced by an environment of fear, doubt and a lack of trust of others, not to mention the ones still waiting for time to take a step backwards. Since the fall of the former regime, we see them attempting to revive their impossible dream on every occasion.

Even now a battle rages among the political powers because of their narrow interests, a far cry from the national interest. The discussions about the agreement to withdraw foreign troops, both the ones that took place in parliament and the ones that took place among privately with leaders of the political blocs, revealed the state of a hidden conflict. On the surface, the conflict is about interests, benefits and defending the rights of this party or that, but the truth of the conflict is a struggle for power. What the reform documents show is that the formation of power is still firmly established in the thinking of certain political persuasions, and that formation will remain a stumbling block for the future of the entire political process.

Perhaps what is most alarming is the position taken by most of the political powers represented in the parliament towards the government of national unity and its president in particular. Those blocs tried to cast the government in a light of isolated decision- making far from the national interest. They showed themselves in opposition to his policies, not as partners in government. They feared Mr. Maliki’s method of leading the government, even though events proved the soundness of his methods and his nationalism. He has all the makings of a strong statesman, not through using violence and exercising authority with force, but with a strong will to face dangers and challenges, to deal with circumstances and changes in patience, execution and wisdom. In the eyes of most of Iraqis from different ethnic, religious and political backgrounds, he was truly the man of the hour who succeeded in leading the country to the dry land of security. He brought them to the shores of peace.

The agreement to withdraw foreign forces might be the beginning of a new phase which will allow the Iraqis to regain a chance to build the Iraqi state on true foundations and achieve all to which the Iraqi people aspire in terms of prosperity, security, stability, and development in every economic and societal field. It will give them a chance to regain their role as pioneers on a regional and world level in every field. If many saw the agreement as the lesser of two evils, then the Iraqi negotiators succeeded in extracting concessions to make it possible to unite support for the government in its attempts to carry out the agreement’s articles and make it a reality. It can be a strong basis for building the Iraqi state and lifting it out of its deteriorated present.

The next phase will have huge challenges in every field and on every level, especially when building the armed forces. The timelines established in the agreement to withdraw American forces require accelerating building the Iraqi army and equipping it with the necessary heavy weapons to grant it the power to fill the vacuum of the American forces. The hidden challenge in building the Iraqi army is the American refusal, five years strong, to arm it. This will require forcing, not convincing, the American administration to accept the principle of the existence of a strong Iraqi army, and bring it out of its irrational fear of the presence of that army. The prime minister was clear in his speech with prominent personalities and tribal sheikhs in Dhi Qar province when he pointed to the necessity of building an army on a nationalistic and highly professional basis. What we need today is the return of compulsory service. We need to rebuild the armed forces with all their combat and support branches, especially in the air force and navy. We should take a fresh look at some of the military leadership, especially those who came to their positions through the “apportionment” system. We need the military experience of senior officers in the former Iraqi army. The mission of building the armed forces is a national mission that should be supported by all, since it is the means in which to achieve the withdrawal and end the chapter of occupation forever. The first step on that journey would be to end military operations that prevent the armed forces from carrying out its mission of reformulation and training, granting that army the trust it deserves and to stop doubting its nationalism and loyalty, because events have proved the loyalty of our army to Iraq, and to nothing but Iraq, and the time has come for those who claim to be nationalists to show their nationalism by putting their trust in our army and government. They should stand by it in order to expel the foreign forces, especially since the next six months will be a chance to test the seriousness of the American side.

Will the political powers heed the danger of this phase, and stop looking after their own interests and end their conflict in order to prevent giving the United States a pretext for staying and not carrying out its obligations? The Iraqi political powers must do this for the sake of a strong and independent Iraq, capable of protecting its borders and maintaining its own security, free from every trace of occupation and the stealing of its sovereignty for the two decades prior. They shouldn’t doubt the legitimacy of the Iraqi state and describe it sometimes as occupied and sometimes as lacking the sufficient sovereignty to make agreements with the occupying power because the weaker party, despite the international law that they complain about, has met a group of conditions that make it a completely sovereign state in the context of international law and is able to enter into binding agreements with all countries. The most important of those conditions is that it can seek legal decisions from the International Court of Justice and that it can apply and enforce its own laws using its own resources. It has made agreements with other countries. All of these conditions are present in the government of national unity and in the Iraqi state.