Mistaken to Demand American Withdrawal
seems that rather than examining Iraq's military preparedness, the stubborn among
us have dug in their heels, insisting on labeling a reduced U.S. presence as
'occupation of the Iraqi state.' This is illogical and ridiculous. … How can
any country occupy another with a few thousand troops who are present with the
consent of both governments?"
In the early stages of
setting up a new state, particularly on the ruins of a dictatorship, it is
dangerous to deal unrealistically with critical issues. Rather than
decision-making based on short-term political demands, such a situation
requires a high degree of flexibility. Otherwise the opportunity to properly
rebuild the nation could be lost.
The withdrawal of American
troops overshadows all other political issues. All else pales in comparison to
the profound importance, both politically and in terms of security, of the American
pullout, which will bring to an end what began on April 9, 2003. This will be a
test of the capacity of the political cabinet to deal with the new situation
and whatever crisis may arise.
Many have observed contradicting
views on the subject. The first is an insistence that the Americans not maintain
any future presence on Iraqi soil. The second is the reality: Iraq needs U.S.
support to get passed the current difficulties, which would also prevent an
inevitable and nearly-complete power vacuum. The distance between the two
positions shows that talk of agreement on a formula that would be in the best
interests of Iraq and its security were overly-optimistic
I do not intend to justify
the Americans' remaining, nor do I wish to underestimate the capacity of Iraqis.
But I mean to say that the way this issue has been handled was overshadowed by
the media. That has led to political stubbornness and an insistence on a
complete American withdrawal, despite very pressing matters that suggest they
should remain. This can be seen in the broad political debate on this topic.
Rather than dealing with the
U.S. withdrawal as a pressing issue that bears on the reality of Iraq's future,
it has been used to draw a reaction from political opponents and certain
Reading about the issue
politically, it seems that rather than examining Iraq's military preparedness, the
stubborn among us have dug in their heels, insisting on labeling a reduced U.S.
presence as "occupation of the Iraqi state." This is illogical and
How can any country occupy
another with a few thousand troops who are present with the consent of both governments?
If that were the case, then most of the Gulf countries and many more around the
world are now under occupation.