The Denouement–Iraq as the US Exits

Part one of a two-part article

By Geoffrey Cook, MMNS

San Francisco–Your author is denoting the City of composition of this exercise, for nothing can be further from the influence  of Washington’s “Beltway,” or the Metropole Of the American hegemony.  This piece of work does not deny representing the Obama-era North American view of an evolving bi-lateral relationship after a tragic  and unnecessary conflict. It is based on primarily U.S. sources – including the Islamic niche press here – and secondarily the British and Pakistani press.

If California (where San Francisco stands) were a separate country, it would be one of the ten largest economies in the world, but it is often at odds with the center of sovereignty on the Atlantic Coast (and the rest of much of the country, for that matter).  Succinctly, it is much more progressive and innovatively forward-looking!

This is the part of America that is more a part of the Asia-Pacific region than Europe.  Whereas Washington has much more of an impact east across the Atlantic than Westward across its own Continent, those on the Pacific Coast stringently opposed and resented the Iraqi War and the Bush Administration.  Thus, your essayist derives out of an environment much different from the rest of his nation, and the worldview of the previous Administration. He believes that the aggression upon Mesopotamia was one of the least thought through blunders in the entire history of the American Republic!

New York was attacked in 2001 by an extra-governmental  agency based in Afghanistan, and not in Iraq.  Under International law the U.S. had the right to counter-attack the Taliban State out of self-defense, for they were protecting Al’Quaeda, and would not expel them.  It was an act of self-defense in that Osama bin Laden, the leader of the “Base” (the translation of their name from the Arabic), had formally declared War upon America.

By diverting energies to Iraq, the Hegemon (i.e., the U.S.) still has a major unfinished War in the Hindu Kush, and the American response in the Middle East strengthened “our” true enemies, Al-Qaeda, changing the struggle from a “sub-subnational” one into a Pan-Islamic multi-national  struggle which has even made inroads into the Western heartland.  

Gautam Mukhopadhaya, the first Indian Ambassador to Kabul  after the initial collapse of the Taliban, stated to your reporter that whereas “Iraq was [is] a War of choice…Afghanistan is one of necessity!”  Therein lays the great blunder of the Bush Administration which President Obama now has to sort out at a great “price.”  For his government, and the eventual domestic economic recovery of the American nation, the BushPresidency’s foreign adventurism — based on the dominant  Neo-Conservative ideology of the first decade of our present Century – has to be replaced with a more respectful policy towards the Middle East, South and Southeast Asia, and largely to the Islamic world as a whole which Obama is attempting to do.

In a recent — official – (U.S.) State Department dossier, re leased by D.C.’s Embassy in Brussels (Belgium) [the headquarters of NATO – the North Atlantic Treaty Organization], entitled The United States Policy  toward Iraq…” President Barrack Obama promised as early as the opening months of 2009, in a speech before his troops as their Commander-in-Chief. “…our combat mission will end by the end of…” next month [August].  His regime is running close to his schedule, but the fact that he did not withdraw in disarray much as the American Army was forced to do in 1975 from Saigon, or stay in Mesopotamia under the theory of perpetual War as some of George W. Bush’s advisors had developed for Israel before they held  the fasces in Washington both the Left and Right have opposed his strategy.  (Bush’s policy in Iraq only demonstrated America’s incestuous relation with Tel Aviv.  The sacrifice of the Coalition’s soldiers and Marines benefited more the I.D.F. [the Israel Defense Force] than it did the District of Columbia or London, for, if the Jewish State did take part in the aggression, it was very likely that the assault would have lead to a region-wide war – if not proceeding to a World War itself.)

During the past week from the date of this writing, the American Military has handed over the last Arab prisons back to Iraqi control.  Foreign soldiers have been keeping as low a profile as possible in the countryside outside of the cities for some time, but ready to re-enter the urban areas in case of a Mutiny emanating from civil society, or if the smoldering insurgency would flare too high for the Coalition-trained Iraqi police and/or Army to contain, the Americans would be able to re-occupy their former positions quickly.  There is fear within  the current recognized regime in Baghdad that if a rebellion broke out, the Iraqi armed services may not be able to suppress it.  Therefore, a small contingent of American soldiers could remain in bases there for possibly years there at the request of their central government — much like the American presence in Korea.  At the same time,  a nationwide study conducted there discovered that “the [elected] Iraqi government has…made no…progress toward its fundamental goal of national reconciliation.”  This represents a lack of confidence in the rulers by the ruled, and the populace just may not accept a continuing American presence — even if the request emanates from their elected officials.  Still, this examination concluded, “..[an] optimistic possibility permeated all…seemingly diverse groups of Iraqis.”

The quotes above come from a late 2007 report in the Washington Post based on a Gallup Poll conducted in Iraq.  The assessment discovered that there was an  overwhelming opinion amongst a large number of a “scientifically” picked sampling of citizens that they would be better off if the Americans left their nation.  Of course, as mentioned above, now Iraq has its own government, while still under the external constraints of the Americans as, further, intimated in the previous paragraph.  The general sense of those surveyed was that the Americans are the pivotal element that is encouraging the ethnic strife.


0 replies