Our Security … and Washington's Responsibility!

U.S. aid to Iraq is not an act of good will on Washington’s part. Rather, it is an obligation if this country is to perform. U.S. officials repeatedly intone that Iraq’s security is part of U.S. security, and there is a security cooperation agreement between the two nations. Justifying the U.S. occupation of Iraq, former President George W. Bush often repeated in his speeches that Iraq had become the first line of defense against terrorism. He also often repeated, “We have successfully moved the war to enemy territory and our country is safe.”

When U.S. forces first entered Iraq in 2003, certain analyses based on “leaked” information — according to their authors — indicated that the aim of the U.S. was to clear the way for al-Qaida assassins to come to Iraq from other regional nations in order to eliminate them there, where U.S. forces, equipped with the latest surveillance technology and weaponry, were stationed.

There were indicators that supported this analysis — among them was U.S. troops intentionally leaving the borders open so that anyone who so wished could enter the country. There were secure roads open to large groups of al-Qaida members, who came from numerous Arab and non-Arab nations to join up with members of the former security apparatuses, after most of the latter defected to working as armed insurgents, supported by regional nations and local politicians. They formed “jihadi” organizations, thus becoming a branch of the terrorist political process. Also supporting the above analysis was the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, a byway for an American adviser at that time. His office was adjacent to that of the minister; he oversaw all actions at the Ministry and was able to reject or sign off on any matter there.

I recall that in 2006, the Iraqi military attache in Washington received an offer from a company specializing in military equipment manufacturing to purchase highly advanced border surveillance equipment as a way to control the borders via a surveillance center to be established in Baghdad. The office of the attache sent this offer to the Ministry of Defense in Baghdad, expecting an affirmative answer to arrive shortly, which never happened. They sent the offer again, emphasizing the system’s usefulness in border surveillance and control, but the matter was ignored again, to be followed later by an answer stating that the matter had not been approved. At that time, the Iraqi official in the U.S. expressed his suspicion and frustration over what had happened to me; when his period of service ended, he applied for refugee status and remained in the U.S.

The question today is the following: Did the Americans eliminate al-Qaida and its terrorists before withdrawing from Iraq? This was their unfinished mission. However, military withdrawal has not meant complete withdrawal from Iraq. Intelligence, security and diplomatic operations continue. Today there is an acceptable level of Iraqi military strength, and it is within Iraq’s right that the U.S. increase security and intelligence support to complete the mission that U.S. forces left unfinished after leaving us and leaving behind them a terrorist base that has become ever more active, abetted by the country’s internal political disturbance.

Information indicates that the U.S. stipulated demands and conditions in response to Iraq’s request for security cooperation in order to contend with terrorism. This matter cannot be subject to demands. Terrorism has penetrated Iraq and spread throughout, right before the eyes and ears of the U.S. If al-Qaida is a true enemy of Washington, then intelligence support for Iraq in its war against terrorism would also be in America’s interests.