Iraq and the U.S. Withdrawal: Sovereign Decision or Political Conflict?

There was still a controversy in Iraqi policy circles about American troop withdrawal from Iraq by the end of this year. The strong political powers disagree about this; there are supporters, opponents and those who stay on the fence. In other words, they are divided into three groups. The first demands withdrawal of all the forces in accordance with the agreement; at the head of them is the Sadrist Movement and some members of the Iraqi National List. The second group demands a withdrawal of part of the forces and represented by Turkmens, some members of the Iraqi National List and the National Alliance. The third group, that demands that the forces stay, is represented by majority of Kurds, some of the National Alliance and some bodies friendly with America.

It is not a secret that relations between Iraq and America, even if the withdrawal is accomplished, will remain strong and solid, and the influence of America in Iraq will be huge. It would be unreasonable for Americans to first endure having around 4,500 citizens killed and injured, spend billions of dollars and then leave Iraq for neighboring countries and local communities to take control over it, all without having a word in deciding the future of this country rich in natural resources.

In spite of this, many Iraqi politicians are aware of the risks in their future and future of Iraq after American withdrawal. They may make an effort to create a system that would be accepted by the majority of Iraqis while attempting to satisfy the needs of Iraqi armed forces — like the intensification of arming, equipping and training — all of which would just be an excuse for the existence of American forces in Iraq. Many Iraqi politicians, at the head of them Prime Minister Al-Maliki, declared that it is necessary for American troops to withdraw completely by the end of the year, as outlined in the agreement between the two countries.

The most difficult question is whether American troops will in fact withdraw from Iraq. The prime minister is in a confusing and difficult position that no one envies. He does not want to lose America’s friendship and does not want to become an antagonist of the Sadrist movement, which declared that it would mobilize the frozen wing of the Mahdi army if the American troops stay in Iraq after the end of this year. On the other side, shouts and yells from the masses and some other parties have caused al-Maliki to hesitate. Days ago he shouted that “Americans want a final decision from us and that they should wait. We have a new chance to crystallize patriotic opinion and for different public, official and professional views to come together so we can create a consensus position accordingly.” The prime minister recently started pressuring the U.S. to make some of the troops stay to train Iraqi forces.

The decision for a full American withdrawal from Iraq became an urgent necessity because of clamoring from the masses; citizens started to object to foreigners on their lands. They do not accept the idea that foreigners protect their land or that their staying here will prevent religious fights between their countrymen. They know and remember well the war of identity that took place in recent years, when they witnessed a wave of tears, barbarism and danger. People died in the fight for identity, despite the existence of American troops in Iraq who were better prepared than those who are here now!

Iraqis started to understand the game, that American existence does not protect the citizens or the country inasmuch as politicians, their parties and their groups. The American presence is perceived by citizens as existing merely to foster aggression, especially with al-Qaida, who considers the presence of foreigners as a tool to attract combatants from inside and outside of Iraq. Iraqis started to understand well that an American presence attracts armed groups that before had only operated outside the country and now have come to meet the Americans on the Iraqi battlefield.

Even in political aspects, the withdrawal was used by some politicians as a tool for on-the-street mobilization against the American military presence; a majority of Iraqis wishes that the forces would leave. The situation in the Iraqi armed forces was tense because of the internal religious conflicts. The matter of belief, nationality and doctrine was more important than occupation in the process of forming the military forces, which made the forces creedless and without patriotism. Moreover, the military lost its firmness, possibly leading to the collapse of security in Iraq, especially in the troublesome regions. This pushed the Iraqi government to engage in partnership with United States of America based on what they could gain from America’s military and logistic capabilities. They would be used to support Iraq, participate in training its forces and to develop and arm them to become capable of taking care of their own business in keeping the country safe from internal and external dangers.

However, the military leaders are frustrated and declare that the Iraqi forces are not ready to protect the country after American withdrawal, which means that Iraq’s safety and stability will be threatened. At the head of these leaders is Lieut. Gen. Babakir Zebari, chief of Iraqi staff, who said “according to the plan, Iraq will not be capable of defending its own airspace and borders until 2020. Withdrawal of American troops from Iraq before that year be damaging to Iraq. The present military is capable of resisting internal terrorism, but it is not capable of defending its airspace and borders; at this point, they depend on Americans.” Such anxieties about the withdrawal and lack of preparation of Iraqi forces became commonplace when talking about the Iraqi military, but regardless, it is not important when the Americans withdraw, but what condition they leave Iraq.

The sad thing in all this is how Iraqi politicians will appease the citizens who have lived through all of this and now find their country, future and way of life passing them by since America became both the enemy and the government. In spite of the natural tendency to want to get rid of the occupation and its results, citizens are afraid of losing the only guaranteed strength that they could rely on that was neutral with respect to religion or national alignment. The occupant is generally associated with bringing security and as an obstacle to the domination of one class over another. He is associated also with guaranteeing the rights of groups that do not have their powerful representatives in the government. There is only one question that citizens ask: Will they give back safety, freedom and peace to the Iraqis as they leave?