Will U.S. Tanks Be Leaving Iraq?
Published in Sotal Iraq
(Iraq) on 16 May 2011
by Alla Al-Sa`idi (link to original)
(Iraq) on 16 May 2011
by Alla Al-Sa`idi (link to original)
Translated from
by Umar Seekdaur.
Edited by Nathan Ladd.
Some White House politicians still believe that a technical error has been made and that the countries of the Middle East except Israel are up to this hour, this late hour in the 21st century, in a state of transition.
They believe that grave mistakes have been made when drawing the map of the Middle East. You will perhaps believe sometimes that you are getting to the bottom of things but then you realize, too late, that you are only skidding outwards. Based on this, we can confirm that the Americans will not be staying much longer in Iraq, as they did not get to the bottom, but instead slipped into the quagmire of nationalist resistance, which has led to the failure of the American project in Iraq. War always moves in a straight line. As for peace, the least that can be said is that it is moving in an impossible line. The Americans must first hold talks with the Iraqi people before negotiating with the contending parties in the present government, and the government must negotiate between themselves before negotiating with the Americans. For this reason, the Americans must take a different path, one that will spare them this complication.
So, how do they do that? Since they believe that Middle Eastern states other than Israel are in transition, why is it Baghdad then?
The answer is both new and old at the same time, and its effect is significant. It consists of bringing Iraqis against Iraqis, and this started with the American invasion. The screening process must be activated on the Iraqi scene to distinguish parties that court the United States from those that take a solid stance towards Washington and oppose its plans for the region. The events and developments Iraq is witnessing confirm that it is faced with serious challenges. This situation can only be confronted through national resistance and unity, with a shift from defense to attack. In this climate, Washington keeps on pushing things to the limit and tries as far as possible to pave the way for political dissension on the Iraqi scene.
The point here is the political and sectarian conflict among Iraqis. Pressing on the wound does not stop the bleeding but rather leads to more bleeding, and there is no point in betting on policies that handle things from the outside as long as the Americans are not in control of the inside.
They believe that grave mistakes have been made when drawing the map of the Middle East. You will perhaps believe sometimes that you are getting to the bottom of things but then you realize, too late, that you are only skidding outwards. Based on this, we can confirm that the Americans will not be staying much longer in Iraq, as they did not get to the bottom, but instead slipped into the quagmire of nationalist resistance, which has led to the failure of the American project in Iraq. War always moves in a straight line. As for peace, the least that can be said is that it is moving in an impossible line. The Americans must first hold talks with the Iraqi people before negotiating with the contending parties in the present government, and the government must negotiate between themselves before negotiating with the Americans. For this reason, the Americans must take a different path, one that will spare them this complication.
So, how do they do that? Since they believe that Middle Eastern states other than Israel are in transition, why is it Baghdad then?
The answer is both new and old at the same time, and its effect is significant. It consists of bringing Iraqis against Iraqis, and this started with the American invasion. The screening process must be activated on the Iraqi scene to distinguish parties that court the United States from those that take a solid stance towards Washington and oppose its plans for the region. The events and developments Iraq is witnessing confirm that it is faced with serious challenges. This situation can only be confronted through national resistance and unity, with a shift from defense to attack. In this climate, Washington keeps on pushing things to the limit and tries as far as possible to pave the way for political dissension on the Iraqi scene.
The point here is the political and sectarian conflict among Iraqis. Pressing on the wound does not stop the bleeding but rather leads to more bleeding, and there is no point in betting on policies that handle things from the outside as long as the Americans are not in control of the inside.