Home
Iraq after the United States 2-2
Posted 28/02/2012 09:37 PM
Washington - "squares of liberation"
Yesterday, we published the first part of a lengthy study U.S. from Iraq and to you the second part and the last.
Lining up with Iran in Baghdad Foreign Policy
Iraq did not find him to live in peace in the region. And moving the new Iraqi state, its foreign policy, to compliance with the Iranian regime, and the opposition of the United States on key policy issues, such as Bahrain and Syria, while lined up on what appeared to be the Shiite side in light of the widening sectarian divide in the region. With regard to Syria, the Iraqi government finds itself at odds with its citizens who dream of a year now to see a Sunni state in Damascus. When their back is backed by 15 million Syrians of the year, the year Iraqis hoped to snap up a larger share of the state of Baghdad's Shiite authority or even to regain power in Iraq immediately. It goes without saying that such elements in an unstable region, is ideal for a wider conflict.
Maliki and Ahmadinejad in an earlier meeting
If we put aside the question of the interests of America's strategy in Iraq, there is also the question of America's moral obligations. In the wake of the withdrawal of troops, abandoned America for Friends of the locals, who are those Iraqis who have worked with or for the United States over the past eight, and they now face the possibility of being subjected to punishment as "collaborators" and are at risk for the cleansing of public life, or for the worst. It seemed to some of the officers loyal to the United States in the Iraqi army, the loss of their jobs. In the south and Baghdad, non-governmental organizations began our partner to close their headquarters, due to pressure by local elements of the Sadrists and other Shiite political factions.
In addition there are in the country, thousands of translators who worked with the Americans, and staff, and service workers who are today under pressure and threat of retaliation. According to Muqtada al-Sadr, it is worked for the "occupiers", they are "traitors" and therefore should "boycott", which works to prevent them from senior positions in any field. At the present time, the Iraqis who worked with American forces, certificates of appreciation to hide the U.S. and the invention of fictitious stories, and wait for better days.
Was not the situation would end this way. Late in the autumn of 2009, it was a stable democratic Iraq at hand, Iraq could have been the components that correspond to a power-sharing in a peaceful manner without the need for U.S. forces as a guarantor of that agreement. But was stopped this positive momentum in the 2010 elections, parliamentary, when it prevented the de-Baathification committee hundreds of candidates from contesting the elections by conducting them, and tried to overthrow dozens of winners after the election.
The failure of America to stop the Iraqi version of the Council of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, with the tacit support of al-Maliki, which mainly targeted the Iraqi List coalition, means that the elections took place under a dark cloud has never clears. We have poisoned the relations between this case and the Iraqi List, a coalition of state law to Maliki, making an effort in Washington and later to form a majority government composed of these two blocs be difficult very difficult.
Must be seen to the decision to reduce the U.S. troop presence in Iraq by 50 per cent during the intractability of the Iraqi government in 2010 as a strategic mistake has squandered American power when the situation was in dire need of that influence, leaving the Iraqis believe that we were concerned about the security of the polling stations and vote more than our concern on the political outcome of the elections.
Gave the signal to reduce the number of troops to separate the military campaign for our political objectives in Iraq, which was a successful strategy to overturn to Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker in the two years 2007-2008 and based on the linking of military activities to support political ends. More importantly, however, that reducing the number of forces gave Iraqi politicians, referring to the lack of U.S. commitment to long-term, they are politicians who are seeking long-term support.
Christtar historians how the U.S. military campaign lasted nine-year yield is not about democracy, but for Iraq, which would be governed by a strong man, and riven by sectarian and separatist tendencies, and are increasingly biased to America's adversaries in the region. Does not seem to understand that the United States so far wrought in Iraq, and certainly did not have an honest discussion about the permanent interests in Iraq and how to achieve them.
Most observers praised the Americans departure of U.S. troops from Iraq as a victory of sorts, while Iraq is given little value in the hierarchy of our interests in the hierarchy of foreign policy, despite the importance of the country in the world economy and the policy of a vital region is witnessing a profound difference.
If current trends continue, instability in Iraq after the United States, as well as his hostility to our influence and our presence, they may far exceed our ability to manage planned. In the absence of a sober reassessment of our interests, and our position, and the relationship with the emerging Iraqi state, we must be satisfied with the vision of Iraq is drifting to the camp of liability or to civil war for years to come. This may occur, in the end, we announced the end of the war is not over yet.
* The first part of the study:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
