While
many Iraqi Shiites, particularly those affiliated with Muqtada
al-Sadr like those above,
oppose the proposed long-term security
agreement with the U.S., there are also many Iraqis who
favor it -
including
Sunnis, Kurds and many moderate Shiites.
Sotal Iraq, Iraq
Iraqis Who Oppose
U.S. Security Deal Are Not Patriots
"The government and those who
side with it are aware of the importance of having an American presence now and
in the future, not only to repel the conflicting ambitions of Arabs, Turks and
Iranians, but also to prevent a civil war ... those who oppose it, do so on the
basis of sectarian motivations, decided by people outside of Iraq."
If for political
and tactical reasons, the American administration won't announce the terms of
the Convention being sought with the Iraqi Government; if some of the terms of
the deal adversely affect Iraqi "sovereignty and dignity"; and if as
Nouri al-Maliki has said, talks are at a standstill, then why doesn't the Iraqi
government or it’s representatives at the talks reveal to the Iraqi people the
items that they say so detrimentally affect Iraqi sovereignty and dignity, to
help win popular support for the government's position so that all can
understand how the government defines its "sovereignty and dignity"?
Why does the
government leave the Iraqi people prey to confusing rumors that are manipulated
by people out-bidding one another [to prove their love of country] and who fill
newspapers and satellite TV channels with injurious misinformation and
delusional irrationality … Do we truly live in the era of transparency and
democracy, as our esteemed government leaders, members of Parliament and party
leaders claim? Or is this only talk - the sowing of seeds of illusion within
the minds of this pitiful people, whose field of dreams is desolate and barren,
and for whom the hoped-for heaven is instead a living hell?
Or are the
government and its members trying to be heroes by pretending to be fighters and
defenders of Iraqi interests by taking responsibility for acts they haven't
performed; by pretending to be champions without ever entering the field of
battle; by posing as protectors of the faith who stand by the power of their
arguments; by claiming to have turned the tables on the Americans and having
achieved an agreement in the interests of Iraq - without revealing the names of
the negotiators or the terms of the agreement? … The government must disclose
the contents of the talks so that we might know of its heroism and the
sincerity of its claims.
Someone should
explain the meaning of the absolute secrecy that has surrounded the draft
Convention - and the meaning of the non-disclosure of the names of those on the
negotiating team; especially if the results of the talks are to be sent to
Parliament for debate and ratification.
As to the
controversy over whether it will be ratified, I'd like to put it as the
Egyptians would: "The news for which you have to pay for today, will be
free tomorrow." Are negotiators afraid to shoulder the blame, or are they
concerned they can’t stand up to the Arabic or Iranian backlash? The legs of
the negotiators tremble when it comes to accepting responsibility for their
actions.
It seems that all
of this turmoil over the agreement is just a means of sweet-talking and evading
responsibility before the Iranians and an attempt to buy the friendship of the
Iranian leader. We saw a sign of this when the Prime Minister, in a very
undignified way, removed his necktie in the presence of one high-ranking
Iranian minister - one of those who has caused the shedding of blood of
thousands of Iraqis at the hands of militia factions. [A reference to the way
Iranian politicians wear shirts without ties].
Of course, the
government and those who side with it are aware of the importance of having an
American presence now and in the future, not only to repel the conflicting
ambitions of Arabs, Turks and Iranians, but also to prevent a civil war, the
flame of which has yet to be extinguished. For there are thousands who continue
to blow on the embers - embers that are mainly due to the presence of political
Islam at the head of the state and the spread of sectarian thinking in
politics, culture and the Arab media.
WORLD'S VIEW OF IRAN'S MOST POWERFUL LEADER
The government
and politicians of influence know perfectly well the meaning of the agreement,
which stipulates the continuing presence of American forces. This is in their
interest, for none of them can ensure the prevention of a military coup or an
organized terrorist attack sponsored by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, or any of
the other oppressive, dictatorial and authoritarian surrounding countries.
In light of the
complete corruption of all administrative offices of the country, from the
height of power represented by the three presidencies to the smallest
administrative units, no level of government, regardless of how patriotic, can
function and progress without foreign support. Not even one percent of the
construction programs that have been promised can be completed, for corruption
is a plague at every level. The nation has watched before its very eyes the
complete failure of the Iraqi government with regard to its filthy debts [from
the Saddam era] and the unfair compensation paid to the Arab States on the
backs of the Iraqi people. With its humiliating policy of adopting the
technique of begging, imploring and feigning poverty to the Arab nations, the
Iraqi government was unable to have even a small percentage of its debt to them
forgiven. Iraq has been totally refused debt-reduction by the Arabs - let alone
debt forgiveness, whereas the United States of America, with its intelligent
policies, managed to convince many Western countries to write-off Iraq’s
debts.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
Indeed, the truth
is that in Iraq, there's a conflict between sectarianism and patriotism. For
since the religious parties have been in power, sectarianism rather than
national interests has determined the nature of alliances and agreements. The
Sunni parties are aligned with Saudi Arabia - in spite of its hatred toward Iraqi
Shiites and Saudi support for terrorism; and Iraq's Shiite parties continue to
adhere to the idea of the Mehdi [the Shiite messiah]
- despite Iran's huge share of responsibility for the havoc and destruction
that has befallen Iraq since the fall of the barbaric Baathe
regime.
This attitude by
some parties, politicians and religious authorities is just an echo of the
sectarian forces outside of Iraq, that don't care about Iraq nor the people of Iraq,
except to the extent that it's in harmony with their wasteful, selfish
interests. Hence we can understand why so many are opposed to the
Iraqi-American agreement, because their opposition isn’t based on the national
interest. Rather, they oppose it on the basis of sectarian motivations, decided
by people outside of Iraq.
Adults and children hold signs that read 'No to the Agreement with the Occupiers', after streaming out of a Mosque on June 6, in Karbala, 50 miles south of Baghdad.
[LATEST NEWSWIRE PHOTOS: Iraq Security Deal].
