Debate Concerning the US Withdrawal

There were many names for the U.S. military presence in [Iraq], which lasted from April 2003 until now. It has been called an occupation, invasion and liberation, which has resulted in ferocious attacks by the opponents to which America’s forces were exposed. At the same time, these troops contributed to the training of Iraqi security forces and the country’s rebuilding, in order to turn a new page of good relations with the citizens.

As far as the relationship with U.S. troops is concerned, the Iraqi government’s position was a very difficult challenge ever since the start of its rule in 2003.

This relationship, which was dominated by vagueness and uncertainty and lacked clarity, was bound to end in accordance with American rules.

However, the signing of two agreements – one concerning security and one concerning framework – at the end of 2008, put an end to this vagueness, as the government and national political forces agreed unanimously in parliament on the implementation of debates for timetables for the U.S. military troops’ withdrawal from Iraqi soil.

From the beginning of this year, Iraqi diplomats fought in tough debates and meetings and granted immunity to the Americans, who preferred withdrawal and insisted on leaving 5,000 American military trainers in Iraq. Nevertheless, the Iraqi negotiator strongly opposed the government and its representatives in the House granting immunity to soldiers while demanding a reduction in military trainers to as few as possible. The debate resulted in an agreement that dozens of these trainers would remain in Iraq as employees, coordinated by the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

The success of the Iraqi negotiator showed friends and opponents of the “new” Iraq that the country has absolute and entire sovereign authority. If some of the countries, parties or personalities had not used Iraq as a pretext for resistance in order to remove the occupier, there would not have been loss or fighting.

Here, occupying forces are leaving the camps that they have been occupying for a whole eight years – camps that were loaded down with machinery, weapons and munitions. Many bets were lost when the two agreements were drawn up; one of the bets was that American soldiers would not leave Iraq, but destroy it. The other was that another country would take advantage of the empty security space to introduce its own agenda and occupation of Iraq. Yet another bet was that Iraq would be divided into two small countries as long as American soldiers were controlling the matter, and many other bets and scenarios affirmed their failure.

Iraqi leaders need more time to talk, to sit down at an Iraqi table and discuss how to protect the unity of the country, manage the administration in this new stage and prevent disturbances of the peace, which the national military forces strive for. They involve themselves in marginal conflicts regardless of the consequences, despite agreements concerning the continuation of Iraq’s nation-building, protection of its borders, usage of natural resources, equal distribution among its people, introducing an innovative system of punishment and reward as specified by the constitution articles, settling the issue of corruption and creating a constitutional state without marginalization. It will not be an easy feat, as some people believe. The number of tasks for the Iraqi army will grow because of the increasing number of people wishing to overthrow the new democratic system in the fear that revolutions will reach them, and because of the army’s greediness for devouring the Iraqi cake which they consider forlorn, even after one of the largest countries in the world ends its presence here.