The scene outside the Iraq Foreign Ministry building
after a truck
bombing attack on August 19. At least 100 and likely many more
people were killed in the attack, which some observers
attribute
to pro-government forces that fear the upcoming
elections.
Azzaman, Iraq
America's Duty to Iraq
"The situation in Iraq is deteriorating.
Washington has a historic and moral responsibility to prevent this, even if it requires the use of force against factions involved in the game of
shedding Iraq's blood and fueling this hell."
An American soldier and an Iraqi soldier stand guard in the Iraqi city of Kut after bombs exploded in two buses, killing at least ten, Aug. 24. Some believe the recent onslaught of violence stems from pro-government groups that fear losing influence after the upcoming elections in January.
Promises
that the upcoming elections [January, 2010] will resolve Iraq's problems are just
an attempt to perpetuate a delusion in the minds of the people. The polls will
only succeed in leading them further astray from the central issues in wretched
Iraq: sorting out the American position that is now only beginning to take
shape and addressing the confusion within the
governing parties, all of which are struggling to maintain the gains they have
won. These elections won't bring greater security.
After
the behavior of our political parties and officials over the past six years,
Iraqi minds have opened - and they won't make the same mistake again.
Government
leaders say that the elections will address the unresolved issues that lie
behind the current crisis. In other words until then, Iraqi blood will
continue to be shed every day in a gruesome slaughter as part of a political
process that cannot be saved, even if the United States wishes to.
Without doubt, the political elite know the predicament they're in. And
they know the elections are no solution - because it is they who are largely
responsible for the problem. Recent government statements directed toward
the public are evidence of it's wish to continue the deception.
Two days ago, after the terrifying explosions that occurred in Baghdad
and Mosul, the prime minister [Maliki] said that there are groups working again, to
push Iraqi elements into sectarian and racial conflict. He
therefore implicitly suggests that the factions behind Iraq's recent troubles are already known, and
that the attacks weren't the doing of the usual suspects.
Posted
by WORLDMEETS.US
[Editor's Note: The author suggests that those behind the
recent bombing campaign are not al-Qaeda or disgruntled Sunni groups, but pro-government
parties who fear losing influence after the upcoming elections].
To summarize, the government talks of factions waging war on the country
- and who plan to participate in the elections which, as they say, are financed
with foreign money. But at the same time, it is unable in any shape or form to stand
against the destruction they wreak. What does this mean? That the government is
incapable and weak? That this insinuates an electoral message to new alliances?
[i.e.: that Maliki's refusal to act is a hidden message to the factions and
parties who are behind the recent bombings that regardless of the elections, they
will continue to play a role]. Or is it, perhaps, that the government is
voluntarily or being forced to participate in all of these events?
In
any case, this is all evidence that the situation is deteriorating and that
rivers of blood may soon flow again. Washington has a historic and moral
responsibility to prevent this, even it requires the use of force
against factions involved in the game of shedding Iraq's blood and fueling this
hell.
