Withdrawal from Cities or Just Redeployment?

A stream of words poured forth on the 30th of June to mark the withdrawal of U.S. forces from occupied cities in Iraq, both from the American administration and the occupation government.

Let’s start with the occupation government’s discourse. The most popular and repeated depiction, among most politicians of the Iraqi occupation government, was of a ‘reclamation of sovereignty’ and ‘a historic day.’ But the concepts of ‘sovereignty’ and a ‘reclamation of sovereignty’ have a strange ring to them in this ‘New Iraq.’ The civilian ruler, Paul Bremer, once ‘transferred sovereignty’ to Ayad Allawi, the first prime minister of the occupation government, on June 28, 2004, instead of on the previously intended date of June 30. This was passed quietly out of fear of resistance attacks, with celebrations lasting only five minutes, in which Bremer addressed Allawi, Ajil al-Yawar and Burhum Saleh: “You are now ready for sovereignty and this is an important part of our promise, as temporary trustees, to return sovereignty to you.”

Allawi described the day (and notice the resemblance with words uttered on the day of withdrawal) as a “historic” one. Al-Yawar added: “This is a happy and momentous day.” Bremer responded by recalling America’s favor towards them: “Without doubt, the liberation of Iraq was one of the greatest and noble of achievements.”

From that day, premonitions of reclaiming sovereignty never left the minds of Iraq’s politicians, perhaps because a liar’s memory does not extend to all those lies told daily. But the transfer and reclamation of sovereignty are lies that need adjustments and additions through the passing of days.

Commenting on this situation in November 2008, ‘President’ Jalal Talabani said: “The adoption of an agreement concerning [the] withdrawal of American troops from Iraq means completion of the remaining elements of sovereignty and independence of Iraq.” However, it was not long before he forgot the story of sovereignty, seen during a conversation set up with him by the state-run al-Iraqiyya tv channel: “It is a great shame that most of our brothers do not know what lies behind the scenes. Ours is not a free, independent, liberated country.”

Then on January 5, 2009, Talabani recalled the favor given by his masters on the day of the opening of the biggest American embassy in the world, located in the capital city of Baghdad, by saying: “The existence of this democratic, federal, independent Iraq would not be possible were it not for the brave decision of his excellency George W. Bush to liberate the country.” His speech was given in the presence of war criminal, and then Deputy Secretary of State, John Negroponte, who added some words on the concept of sovereignty, saying: “You’ve cemented yourself as a fighter and statesman, for a free, sovereign and united Iraq.” It deserves mention that Negroponte is the spiritual father of death squads in Latin America and Iraq, whose civilian victims number hundreds of thousands, according to international reports.

The second president of the occupation government of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Jafari, known for liking the sound of his own voice, contributed by adding new dimensions to the lexicon of Iraqi sovereignty. On July 1, 2005, he said that “the trial of Saddam Hussein will represent a feature of Iraqi sovereignty.” Because the sectarian Da’wa party was the one that produced al-Jafari and Nouri al-Maliki, it is not unusual therefore that their respective discourses correspond, despite their presidential reigns differing in period.

So this is the context in which al-Maliki finds himself a part of, delivering a speech before Iraqis on the day of withdrawal, saying: “National sovereignty is a red line which cannot be crossed in any circumstance.” This is a type of delirium that reminds us of statements made by leaders in al-Maliki’s party and those of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) when they used to claim that they would be rid of the occupation within six months and that ‘sovereignty’ was a red line that cannot be crossed!

Al-Maliki continued his speech by saying: “Iraq has entered a new phase after the implementation of the agreement to withdraw foreign troops from Iraq.” Let us set the broken record of ‘new phases’ aside, since it has been scratched and broken through excessive overplay, and turn to the reality of ‘foreign troop withdrawal.’ This ‘withdrawal’ is nothing more than an official withdrawal that is needed to protect occupation forces from resistance attacks. Iraqi forces will instead be used as human shields, with the U.S. Army protecting itself and equipment, as in the case of those already lying inside fortified bases. The occupation forces will enjoy the ability to re-enter the streets if need be, further being at liberty to wage air attacks and use drones for attacks and surveillance.

Occupation forces still lay low inside the heart of Baghdad, within the biggest U.S. embassy in the world, just within the entrance of the fortified green zone and along the route to the airport. In areas of west Baghdad, forces were reclassified as ‘outer city.’ At the same time, forces present in cities had their names changed to ‘consultants’ and instructors. The latest U.S. figures on the number of mercenaries under Pentagon command indicates an increase of 23 percent since Obama became president, which amounts to 126,000 former military men, notwithstanding those employed in service delivery, truck driving and other services.

30 percent of these men are Americans who have previously worked in special assignments, other are professionals from Latin America and South Africa and other areas that suffered from repression of liberation and democratic movements. This means that the withdrawal of any amount of U.S. government forces will be met by an even greater increase in mercenaries that will enjoy greater immunity than that enjoyed by the American military, regardless of killings or rights violations.

This is one of the many fundamental issues deliberately ignored by the occupation government’s politicians, who instead drone on about ending it as al-Ja’fari did in September 2005 when he unashamedly lied by saying: “From now on, Iraqi law will be implemented on all crimes committed in Iraq included those committed by multi-national forces, with sovereign Iraqi law taking full effect and applying to all.” Yet, here we are in mid-2009 and the dead continue to pile up.

Maj. Gen. Robert Caslen, commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq, announced on June 26 that American forces will enclose cities in an attempt to repeat the strategy of intensifying troop presence, a strategy first implemented by Gen. David Petraeus. Caslen also mentioned that the Iraqi government agreed to the presence of non-combat troops in a number of cities, including their stay in five locations within Mosul until the day of ‘withdrawal.’

The occupation government, which boasts about having sovereignty, claims to have won. But reality tells a different story. The sovereignty of dignity and justice has been transformed into that of a thin rag not worthy of its name. I do not know whether the photos of a million Iraqi civilians dead as a result of the invasion and occupation of Iraq have been seen by al-Maliki, who speaks of balanced relations with the U.S. and points the finger at “terrorists, dictatorial Ba’thi remnants and criminal gangs.” It is as if he is completely unaware of the hundreds of reports by international rights and humanitarian organizations, including the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI), which works in coordination with the Iraqi government and documents violations, humiliations and all criminal violations committed by occupation forces, either with government security forces or the government’s militias or alone.

Protecting the occupier and his crimes is a crime itself and cannot be excused. The average Iraqi will remain a victim of these violations so long as the occupier remains on our lands and enjoys exemption from our laws. Little will change in the situation, whether or not the occupier is in or outside of our cities.