Redefining the U.S. Withdrawal

The withdrawal of American forces from Iraq is still at the forefront of politics. The American government celebrated its own day of sovereignty on June 13, the anniversary of the withdrawal of troops from cities in 2009. However, we need to celebrate another withdrawal: the withdrawal of troops from the desert and from permanent American military bases.

There is legal ambiguity in the definition of the desert, for Iraq is all desert. We could become like Qatar, Turkey or Saudi Arabia that are hosts to American military bases that do not affect their independence or change the colors of their flags. We, however, have continual sandstorms dirtying our flag and changing its appearance. What is the problem with establishing foreign-friendly military bases? On the contrary, they pay us well to host these bases. Maybe we can ask the Gulf countries that have preceded us in this endeavor how much rent one base pays and if it’s calculated by meter of land used or wholesale? How is rent different for bases near a river or in the desert? If they do not pay us the agreed-upon amount on time, do we have the right to throw them out onto the street? Is it right for the tribes to intervene to solve a problem?

There are also other internal and innocent questions. For example, if the government insists and persists until the end, affirming the need for the presence of American troops, what will happen to us next? What is the long-term goal of this project? It is said that some political parties intend to start a campaign to convince us to extend America’s presence. The other parties are against them and are said to want to implement dangerous operations to force them to withdraw. There is yet a third group that intends to carry out genocide to force the troops to stay, under the pretext of the deterioration of security. With the number of different attitudes and positions, there remains yet another question: What is the real value of the withdrawal of American forces? Is the presence of these forces in Iraq or throughout the region based only on the presence of their tanks rolling through the streets? Who thinks that he is ignorant or an accomplice? That there are simply real, hidden powers in the airports, border crossings, hotels and civilian agencies that are like submersible icebergs. There is the American embassy in Baghdad. It is the biggest American embassy in the world, with 16,000 employees and a budget of more than $6 billion. There are confidential rules, and Iraqi-American circles feel their essence. There are ministers, leaders and Iraqi representatives who generally enjoy their special protection and have American nationality. With these perks, they will not be able to look integrity in the eye, for in Washington, there is the deep-rooted ability to use Iraq, with her diversity and internal strife and regional friendships, to protect its own interests and develop its own allies. America works under the philosophy of hegemony, precise and complex. America may be willing to sacrifice its military involvement for the benefit of working relationships and the possibility of maintaining Baghdad as a capital willing to work with America toward her own interests, producing a joint venture whenever possible. Iraq has no national security to speak of. Iraq has no way of standing in front of Washington and saying, “Thank you for your friendship and help during our time of need; however, we are not ready to stand on our own and defend our own.” We have no unified address like this. There are many Iraqi voices calling out — some saying to go right and some saying to go left. If you listen, you will hear the conflicting orders being given. You will also hear the corporal answer: Troops, go home! In the end, that is usually what happens in similar situations.