Egypt
isn't the only nation with a Tahrir Square: Here, in Baghdad's
Tahrir
Square, people have been protesting government ineptitude
and
corruption every week for months. With the deadline for U.S.
withdrawal
approaching, Iraqis are split over if they should remain.
Kitabat, Iraq
Iraqis Mustn't Be Cowed Into Allowing U.S. Troops to Remain!
"If diplomatic
attempts to achieve this fail, according to the logic of the Americans, this
outcome can only be realized by demonstrating the incapacity of Iraqi troops to
hold the reigns alone. These recent attacks appear to be the first elements of
this pressure, which may escalate until Iraq concedes to allowing American
troops to remain."
At his Senate confirmation hearing to be U.S. secretary of defense and amid controversy over whether U.S. forces can or should remain in Iraq, Leon Panetta said that U.S. intelligence believes there to be at least 1,000 members of al-Qaeda left in that country.
It may have become a natural
matter to hear about a car bombing here, a booby-trap there, a suicide bomber
wearing an explosive belt here and an assassin using a gun-silencer there. We may
also have become accustomed to hearing news about an attack or armed intrusion
into a provincial council. That's what happened in Salahuddine and then in
Diyala. All of this might be expected, but there are hard questions about the
timing of these attacks. What do the increasing frequency of such attacks and
the rising tension associated with the approaching deadline for the withdrawal
of American troops signify? What message are these attacks meant to convey? And
who is their sender?
Posted
by WORLDMEETS.US
One might have noticed - if
we were paying attention - that most of the latest security operations have
seen greater participation of U.S. troops, as if the latter were saying: "We
are here, and you still need us.”
Whoever the masterminds of
these attacks are, by hook or by crook, the belief in a need for the support of
American forces in confronting the persistent threats to Iraq may serve to justify
the stance of some political groups, which are shamefully leaning toward extending
the stay of U.S. forces, regardless of the widespread national conviction that their
withdrawal must go forward at any price.
Continued U.S. pressure on Iraq's
political parties makes clear America's craving to extend the stay of its
troops in Iraq. If diplomatic attempts to achieve this fail, according to the
logic of the Americans, this outcome can only be realized by demonstrating the
incapacity of Iraqi troops to hold the reigns alone. These recent attacks appear
to be the first elements of this pressure, which may escalate until Iraq
concedes to allowing American troops to remain.
If this is the case, then the
political maneuvering on the part of the U.S. is meant to make clear that an
American withdrawal will create a security vacuum, and to align the views of Iraq's
political parties with America's craving to remain. And as usual, the result of
this difficult equation will be the deaths of innocent Iraqis.
Will our political parties
decide to allow American forces to remain in order to preserve Iraqi blood? Or
will Iraqi parties be prepared to pay the heavy price for the sovereignty of us
all?
