America in Iraq: I Did It! I Did It! … And I Failed

There is a Kurdish saying that goes, “Wash a little shame in the sea dozens of times and whenever it comes out of the water it will say, ‘Hey, I’m not wet!’”

In light of this saying, we examine the American position on its march away from world domination. We find that America’s regression began in the mid-1960s, with the reprehensible Vietnam War. An unforeseen catastrophe defeated the evil in Iran with the fall of the obedient Shah Mohamed Reza, and after this, most Latin American countries shook off their dependency on the U.S., leaving none of its military leaders behind.

Despite the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, NATO expansion eastward was repulsed. Russia was rescued from America’s clutches and the policy of shock therapy failed during the rule of Boris Yeltsin. Despite America’s abandonment by all of the friends who had facilitated its domination in many regions of the world, beginning with the government of South Vietnam and the Shah of Iran and ending with Pervez Musharraf and Mubarak, and despite all the evidence of its defeats, we see the American administration moving forward as though it were still victorious and confident in its domestic and international abilities. America still believes itself to be the master of the century, forcefully implementing its values and principles, the one master of the world protecting its friends.

Without America, human rights are in danger around the globe because America is continuously manifesting its greed for domination of the world order through a political monopoly of the three leading parties’ elite. They are professional politicians, heads of the larger economic institutions and banks. They are also generals and important officers in the army. The ground that this elite stands upon is the power to accomplish their goals, and history tells us that this ground is based in America. Its foundation is fraud and treachery, hidden beneath a dense fog of democracy, freedom and pluralism. Its claims are distributed amongst the parties in a framework of peaceful interaction.

The clear indications of America’s decline and the expanding phenomenon of flight from recruitment of American citizens fearing death are familiar to the American political elite, such as the former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the godfather of Egypt’s victory in normalizing relations with Arab states. He immodestly claims a lengthy meeting with a New Yorker journalist. Do you think that, in Arab eyes, we had revolutions in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt? Instead, it is said that we have morals in the way we deal with our supporters from world governments. When we were surprised by the uprisings in these countries, we gave up on them and worked on sabotaging the uprisings. Kissinger explicitly discussed the situation in Syria when he said that in order to achieve change in Syria, Syria must burn from the inside!*

As modest observers, everything that is said about the successive American defeats appears to be correct. But I have the sense that the talk and form of the American withdrawal from Iraq is that of a major strategic failure that is indicative of a retreat from the Arab world at large. The decision to withdraw from Iraq is not merely a decision that reflects the inability to perform the task that launched the war; rather, it is a sign of the end of an era in American history. Words and evaluations are inaccurate. Looking at Iraq’s domestic situation after the withdrawal of the military following nine years of occupation in the name of freedom, it seems clear that American aggression achieved many parts of its goals for Iraq. Elite forces and officials were constantly oriented toward implementing their goals in a clear and orderly way within the practical program of invasion, although the results were to be catastrophic for the people of Iraq. Those destructive results are now before our eyes.

Since the beginning, a lot of analysts have been focusing since on American progress toward its goal of invading and implementing control over the oil resources by forming a government that is loyal to them in each situation in which American forces invaded and began occupying Mesopotamia. The orientation of the occupiers is obvious: to obtain and ensure a favorable outcome for as long a period as possible, by means of a cunning, scheming program.

America, unfortunately, was successful in destroying every pillar of the Iraqi state. This resulted in programmed chaos in the name of individual freedom. Before the occupation, 20 percent of Iraqi citizens lived in slums. According to reliable reports from international organizations, after the “liberation” this number rose to 53 percent. In accordance with the program prepared in advance to destroy Iraq, 84 percent of the nation’s centers of learning were destroyed and 700 schools were burned. This is causing us to confront a total destruction of Iraqi social values and social structure. The invasion broke all structures linked to tradition, dismantled social cohesion and sowed distrust among the components of Iraqi society. This crime was perpetuated under fancy titles like individual freedom, the freedom to choose one’s life path, etc. These fancy titles are like narcotics to the members of a society that have suffered the scourge of war and the harshness of long trade embargos.

There have been statements in the Iraqi press that the holy city of Karbala is an important site for the drug trade. The phenomenon of deviance began emerging among the youth of Baghdad from Kadhimiya.** There is evidence that organized forces are behind the destruction of social values in this town. Wise people will not be surprised if, in the decades to come, documents are discovered that tell how American officials within the occupying forces were behind this phenomenon and were more interested in it than they were in fighting the Iranian tide. What is even more dangerous is the success of elite government forces and officials in the perpetuation of American goals from invading Iraq to manufacturing policies designed to confuse the factional and sectarian basis of the country. Everything was sacrificed in the process of attaining a vision. All the democratic concepts were distorted in its pursuit and introduction. There was a lack of commitment to the Western-style electoral process.

The gravity of this phenomenon is concealed by the response of politicians in the center of Iraq. This was calculated to continue the political process toward building a state that is able to guarantee stability. Some politicians in Iraq do not oppose rebuilding Iraq, after having been destroyed by occupiers, on the basis of affiliation. Instead, they exchange charges among themselves. Wisely, some of them do not distribute their allegiance to nations outside their borders. They know that America is comfortable with this phenomenon, and the reverse (loyalty on the part of America to the nations it sponsors) is not true.

So, we see that America, in its decision to withdraw its forces from Iraq, is comfortable with the processes it implemented there and knows that it led the course of the destruction of the country, which has led to a popular fatigue and the deaths of more than a million people. The American elite is not ashamed if all the world’s pens write that the American withdrawal is a big strategic failure indicative of its withdrawal from the whole Middle East. The decision to withdraw from Iraq is not only a decision reflecting America’s failure to perform the task that was the basis of the justification of war. This step means the end of an era in American history! Word and evaluations are not accurate. Reading Iraq’s domestic situation after the withdrawal, freedom for that country took nine years.

*Editor’s note: These quotes, while accurately translated, cannot be verified.

**Translator’s note: Kadhimiya is a neighborhood in northern Baghdad.