After America Moves Out

The American withdrawal from Iraq requires a timely consideration of the Iraqi security policies and how they will develop in the future. The Iraqi government faces the new challenge of handling the transition and showing that it can establish Iraqi security in spite of those who would attempt to discredit the new government.

The government must effectively control and prevent the increasingly common terrorist attacks. Such violence not only results in the loss of human lives and property, but also creates psychological anxiety among the people or possibly resulting in discontentment towards the government. Thus, it is imperative that the new government establishes stable and reliable security to prevent the outbreak of another civil war.

The fear among the Iraqi people is that as America movies out, Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations will return to disrupt the unity of the Iraqi people and their confidence in their government. Such terrorist organizations may seek to fill the gap left by the U.S. forces through uniting with other regional powers.

The security services are not as powerful and qualified as they are when American security services are present. Thus there is a concern that the government’s security forces are not capable of independently securing the country. A Baathist leadership statement from the Middle East Newspaper on Wednesday, April 13, 2009, added to these concerns by saying, “We have reformatted our party branches, getting ready for the American withdrawal”.

Proposals for the security and political and economic future of Iraq are being planned according to party, sectarian, or regional interests. The overall strategic plan for after America leaves is not based on national interests as a whole, but rather on the interests of the party or the region.

This portrays Iraq as a chaotic country or one that is ripe to breed chaos. Iraq no longer looks like a developing country with a legitimate constitution that seeks to protect and promote human rights, liberty, and freedom. Rather it is shown as a weak government unable to secure the country and a fragile democracy that is unlikely to succeed in the Arab and Islamic region.

The country is making positive steps toward stabilizing its civil government, while maintaining important Iraqi traditions. The upcoming parliamentary elections are an important beginning to establishing a healthy democracy. But the increasing terrorist attacks divert from the democratic improvements and take the focus off of holding new elections.

The truth is, two agendas oppose the political process and deny its legitimacy. One hopes to highlight the security concerns and escalate the violence. As the violence within the cities continues, U.S. troops move to secure these areas. Foreign troops within Iraqi cities make the country appear as a country under occupation. Thus, it becomes easier to recruit people to fight against the U.S. troops and expel them out of the country. The other calls for extending the confrontation period and for U.S. troops to remain in Iraq to make it a permanent killing field against Americans, which is easier than attacking the U.S. at home. Thus, they intentionally seek to complicate the interior political process to prolong the U.S. occupation in Iraq.

Also, killing any cooperation with other Arabic countries creates barriers to the political process of a democratic Iraq. Then, the terrorist groups can come in from the outside and be free to promote their acts in the violent chaos. Despite improvements in the Iraqi political process, many internal factions don’t want a free and democratic Iraq.