American Forces and Their Unconditional Stay

If the presence of troops is good, their departure would be better. Truly and clearly, the Arab streets throb with demands that the leaders take an active role in the situation, or rather, the conditions of harsh cruelty that the persistence of forces on the ground in Iraq inflict on them. The negotiations for the security treaty between Iraq and America have reached a critical stage, hindering the steps to reform that have been undertaken by the American party and by Iraqi political parties. All parties have taken on a calculated appearance, expecting the end of casualties and the completion of the occupation, while waiting for acclimatization or greater internal clarity.

However, the extension of duty… What benefit can they achieve from Iraq adopting a resolution for this?

What is the truth about the decision of American forces to remain? Is it only an Iraqi national decision without consideration for the balance of power and mobility-based regional and Arab contexts? Will the cooperation agreements free Iraq in terms of money? Is it true that America respects cultures? Also, how do we calculate old and new stupidities, such as the new secretary of defense pursuing the questions of whether the U.S. should extend its stay in Iraq; and on the other hand, the position of the government on dealing with the resistance by using every means approved by the Human Rights Charter, regardless of the consequences. This position has been adopted by more than one within the political process!

These and other questions are legitimate and important to the arrival of a political decision in Iraq, but they go unnoticed when we talk about any decision to leave or prolong the campaign of American forces. Accordingly, the issue is not, as the prime minister demands, an issue of security, in preparing security forces or their ability to fill the American void, but rather politics and the techniques behind it, and whether each country that wants to build its security forces and strengthen its defense capabilities needs to be occupied by foreign forces indefinitely. The problem also is not one of protecting Iraq’s borders, as we all know, nor a threat to Iraq and any of the countries of the region, but the creation of terror.

There are violations occurring in internal security and foreign policy since the agreement, which may be the effect of the U.S. presence. It is, however, much better than it was previously. Well done, Mr. President of the Republic, for calling for dialogue in this case. People have asked questions in the House of Representatives and the president has called loudly for an explanation, but forces in the government do not want to take responsibility and want instead to throw it to the prime minister alone. The political landscape becomes further complicated by the day… All of this requires the resolution of the Iraq crisis in both internal and external security to achieve clear benefits for the people, not for the interests of a political party at the expense of another party, but because of the bullying, which is an unavoidable part of protection by the foreigner. Clearly they helped God’s Iraq get rid of the scourge of “Saddam,” but they exchanged it for the scourge of occupation and the drag of misfortunes.