Friendship

It is strange to use friendly expressions, like (the American-Iraqi friendship), to describe the bilateral relations between the Iraqis & other peoples. For more than four decades, the Iraqis have been exposed continuously to education of hatred which resulted in a very suspicious personality. All the adjacent countries represent, according to this way of thinking, an inimical environment & the Iraqi relations with these countries are based on aggression.

It is really amazing to see the Iraqi Prime Minister & the American President, standing side by side, in the White House. Mr. Bush referred to the hard task that the PM is facing when he said

"… you are helping to lift your country from decades of fear and oppression."

Till few years ago no one would ever believe, here in Iraq, that one day an Iraqi person could be described as

"… a strong partner for peace and freedom."

by the President. I believe it is true saying

"… By securing Iraqi democracy, we will make America and our friends and allies around the world safer."

I referred to something similar in a previous post (Security & Freedom). I am relieved to hear the President's words

"… The enemy's goal is to drive us out of Iraq before the Iraqis have established a secure, democratic government. They will not succeed. Our goal is clear: a democratic and peaceful Iraq that represents all Iraqis. Our troops will continue to train Iraqi security forces so these forces can defend their country and to protect their people from terror. And as Iraqis become more capable in defending their nation, our troops will eventually return home with the honor they have earned."

Rosebuds commented on my previous post

"… America has a lot of State Representatives in in our Congress and there are quite a few "wacky illiterate nitwits" in it. Similare to your wacky
fundamentalist clerics like Sadr. They make a lot of noise(bloviate) and get alot of meda attention but nobody ever takes them seriously."

There are lot of nitwits in the Arab world who make, these days, noise about the MNF existence in Iraq. Their motives are understood since many of them receive good payments from the former regime henchmen, especially Raghad Saddam's eldest daughter who lives in Jordan. But the attitude of 83 members of the Iraqi national assembly, which calls for the MNF pull out, is inconceivable. The noisiest one among them is the Sadrist who made several problems with the American troops.

Now, patience is not endless. Iraqis are trying to be optimistic, but without tangible achievements on the ground a backlash from the ordinary Iraqi people may start to appear. Mr. Bush said

"…Earlier this week, more than 80 countries and international organizations came together in Brussels to discuss how to help Iraq provide for its security and rebuild its country. And next month, donor countries will meet in Jordan to discuss Iraqi reconstruction."

which is true but the commitments should be fulfilled. The American administration has to put pressure on the donors to meet their promises. It is not enough to keep on chasing insurgents. It is essential to activate the economic sector. The delayed reconstruction process causes much frustration to the Iraqis. Moreover, work will divert the youth attention away from the violent operations to something more inspiring. About 75%-80% of the Iraqi cities & towns are calm, & lot of work can be started there.

Let me borrow Mr.Jaafari's words to thank the American people, when he said in the press conference

"…I would also like to thank the American people for standing beside the Iraqi people, going through these difficult times. No doubt our people will never forget those who stand beside Iraq, particularly at these terrible times."

And

"…You have given us something more than money -- you have given us a lot of your sons, your children that were killed beside our own children in Iraq. Of course this is more precious than any other kind of support we receive."

These words represent the rational Iraqi attitude.

Wrong Message

Some Congressmen are calling for a timetable to pull out from Iraq. I believe it is a wrong message in a wrong time to be sent to the insurgents. Logically, the insurgents have no chance to win the struggle with the MNF on the ground, but they could if they sought humbug. For that they are working hard to obtain support from anyone. The insurgents are trying to gain aid from the Arab League, Islamic states, EU, UN, neighboring countries, media, clerics, organizations, individuals…etc. President Bush once said that if his homeland was invaded, he would resist the invaders fiercely. The insurgents & their mouthpieces are tenaciously clinging to what Mr. Bush said to justify their crimes. The insurgency consists of several factions. The baathists & saddamians embody themselves in these factions. The baathists & saddamians are the most powerful group among them. Pulling out from Iraq will cause these groups to appear on the ground & regain power. The baathists are good in deception, so they are expected to turn against their allies, of the present time, and wipe them out.

The first consequence of such wrong message is telling the insurgents that they are doing well by killing American soldiers. You (the insurgents) are hurting us (the Americans). This will encourage the insurgents to put more pressure on the Americans by killing more soldiers. Is it worth killing soldiers to achieve an electoral aim? I don't know what the real intention of declaring such a statement is, but I'm trying to show an Iraqi perspective. Someone, whom I spoke to, viewed it as another let down by the Americans just like the one of 1991 when they pulled out leaving the Iraqis alone to be torn apart by Saddam after the popular uprising of March 1991. Pulling out now may leave the Iraqis alone facing the fundamentalists, insurgents, terrorists, baathists, saddamians…etc.

I agree completely with President Bush in his persistence to fulfill the mission when he insisted in his State of the Union Address on February 2, 2005 when he said:

"We will not set an artificial timetable for leaving Iraq, because that would embolden the terrorists and make them believe they can wait us out…"

and

"… all Iraqis can be certain: While our military strategy is adapting to circumstances, our commitment remains firm and unchanging. We are standing for the freedom of our Iraqi friends…"

He confirmed it again in his Radio Address of this week It seems that Iraqis should trust President Bush since he speaks honestly about what should be done in Iraq. May God bless him. I hope that the American citizens won't stop backing President Bush in his policy in Iraq.

Cultural Contrast (3)

First of all, I'd like to thank Craig for his comment on my previous post. He introduced a balanced perspective. He said

"I know from my Peacekeeping deployments that just saying "US Troops are not policemen" doesn't cut it. If they are used as policemen, they should know what their responsibilties in such a role are."

Craig concluded his comment with

"I don't really have a solution. But somebody needs to find one, because just saying "that's the way it is, move on" isn't working for me."

I agree with his conclusion.

Many comments say "don't generalize". One should discriminate between personal behavior & the military policy. I believe it is not easy, just like an American soldier who can't discriminate between an ordinary peaceful Iraqi & a terrorist. For an ordinary Iraqi, American soldiers' behavior is unpredictable.

The majority of Iraqis (I'm one of them) don't know how & where to make complaints against improper soldiers' behavior. It is not easy for the Iraqis to get over the physical outcomes of unpleasant incidents with the American soldiers, since they live on the edge of poverty & there is no effective insurance system.

"American police are taught to treat every person they encounter as a potential threat"

is acomment made on a previous post. I think it is not right to consider any person as an accused just because he/she is in the wrong place at the wrong time. What about the shock caused to that person & other results, like causing high blood pressure to my brother in law as I had mentioned in "Feelings are universal (2)".

Last week Dr. Muhsin Abdul-Hameed, head of the Iraqi Islamic party, was detained by the American troops. He is a well known public figure even by the Americans, at least at some level of the chain of command. He was a member of the governing council created by the American authority at the early time of occupation, and he was one of the few persons who headed that council. Anyway, according to law, no one is untouchable. The procedure of detaining the man gives very clear evidence of the unnecessary violence used by the American troops. The man, and his house guards, showed no resistance. Still, the American soldiers destroyed doors & furniture, put a sack on his head and lay him brutally on ground. I wonder if it is the same way to be used in the US to detain a public figure like Michael Jackson for example. Dr. Abdul-Hameed released after few hours of detention. This is what happened to an Iraqi public person who proved to be innocent. So, the question that raises "If such a person is treated in such way, what about an ordinary Iraqi and how the American soldiers would treat him".

To be continued…