Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

War on Iraq

Iraqis Want the U.S. Out; This is How it Should Happen

By Adil E. Shamoo, Foreign Policy in Focus. Posted July 2, 2008.


Instead of negotiating a long-term presence in Iraq, the United States should be negotiating a withdrawal.
Advertisement

The Iraqis have reached a consensus: the U.S. should leave Iraq. Regardless of whether they are Kurds, Sunni, or Shi'a; regardless of political party, there is a general agreement that the United States should depart soon -- within the year, or at most, three years. Yet some Americans, especially conservatives, are shocked that the Iraqis would show such a lack of gratitude to the United States.

In the last two weeks, many Iraqi leaders have made the rounds in Washington. Two of them, one a Sunni and one a Shiite leader, testified before the House subcommittee of Foreign Affairs and Oversight chaired by Congressman Bill Delahunt (D-MA). It was remarkable to see the reaction on the face of one Republican member of the subcommittee when the Iraqis replied to congressional questions with a definitive call for withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. The two Iraqis were clear in their expressions of Iraqi sentiment towards the United States: we are considered occupiers, not liberators. One of them, to the astonishment of Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), declared that the removal of one man, Saddam Hussein, was not worth the loss of thousands of Iraqi lives since the inception of the occupation.

Another Iraqi leader among the visitors was Adnan Pachachi, the former Iraqi foreign minister, and former Iraqi Representative to the UN. Dr. Pachachi is one of the leading Sunnis and a leader of a new coalition, the Iraq Democratic Party. While his group advocates the removal of U.S. troops at a slightly slower rate than that proposed by the Shiite leaders, they still call for a rational and safe withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq within a few years.

The recent debates in Iraq and the United States about the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq are prompted by the current negotiations on the long-term presence of U.S. forces in Iraq. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the powerful Iraqi Shi'a leader, informed Prime Minister Maliki that he will oppose the long terms U.S. presence agreement as long as he is alive.

Tens of thousands of Iraqis are demonstrating frequently in Baghdad against the continued presence of the U.S. forces. Every Friday, in hundreds of Mosques, the sermons are calling for the end of occupation.

Many Iraqis do not trust U.S. claims that we will not have permanent bases and have no designs to colonize it for years to come. The Washington Post reported recently that Sami al-Askari, a member of the Iraqi parliament foreign relations committee and a close ally of the Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, declared that, "The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq." Moreover, many Iraqis think we will use Iraqi soil as a launching pad to invade other countries -- especially Iran. The hue and cry among the Iraqis pushed al-Maliki to express concerns regarding a long-term presence for the United States.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, iraq war, saddam hussein, john mccain, iraq occupation, nouri al-maliki, ali al-sistani, iraq withdrawal, bill delahunt, dana rohrabacher, adnan pachachi, sami al-askari

Adil E. Shamoo, born and raised in Baghdad, is a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. He is a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
toppcat
Posted by: toppcat on Jul 2, 2008 9:05 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
you realy don't get it.america as it exhists today only uses words like liberty.concern for promotion of democracy equity fairness press freedoms etc...as a tool to distract from thier true agendas.you know ,propaganda.we promote peace and stability for example by selling and giving billions in weapons and promote domocracy by funding repressive military regimes to crush and suffocate all aspiring alternative political parties.like the school of the americas (Fort bragg Georgia) which taught military and police forces in latin america that the enemies of the state were free media,labor unions,catholic church and poor people and funded the death squads to eliminate the enemies of the state en mass.thats what america is that is what we do.over and over and only.the rest are empty words.you are thinking that there is a group of human beings in this govm't who make decisions based on a moral decent ethical and humanist basis.these people are thieves and murderers.they will lie cheat and send a million civillians to thier graves just to empty the bomb bays so they can build and sell more.they went to Iraq to murder people.set up a puppet govmt.and to steal a country's national treasure.and set up a staging ground to make agressive war on other countries.if americans wanted to be good human beings they have an opportunity to elect a non war pacifist honest president anytime they want. they only vote for war pigs at every election.america is a representative domocracy and liberal and green parties exhist in america.if american citizens were good people then they could have a good gov't but they select evil corrupt vile war pigs and give them thier adulation.you guys missed the boat with Kuccinich,edwards, ron paul,...your dream list iraq exit plan is not going to happen with mcain or obama or hilary and there are no mike gravels in congress either.I predict a continuation of the same. good peoples of the world vote for good pacifist honest govm't and they get it..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FMA in Massachusetts
Posted by: FMABBI on Jul 5, 2008 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a sensible article! Finally, a plan that makes sense. The only thing I might suggest is that the Iraqis purchase the equipment there instead of us giving it away.

Let's get the hell out of there and with humility we should apologize to them and to the world - that our President shamed us by his blunders -unjustified war, mismanagement of the war, and the atrocities committed in our name. We should ask for forgiveness and put ourselves right with the world. Do you think we have the courage and honesty to do such a thing?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: FMA in Massachusetts Posted by: lil ole me
I Hope Someone In Obama's Campaign Hierarchy Will Read This
Posted by: rgoalierob on Jul 5, 2008 7:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By leaving equipment for their military and paying some reparations, it will show some sincerity on our part.
The private contractors should be open to civil litigation as well, including governmental freezing of their assets.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

agree 100%
Posted by: 8 nontheist on Jul 5, 2008 4:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is trying to back out of having US troops out of Iraq 16 months after he takes office. These proposals need to become US policy so that Obama & others will not have any excuse for any presence of US forces in Iraq. All of the troops can be out of Iraq & back home within 16 months after Obama takes office.
Since there has been a civil war in Iraq since 2004, the departure of US troops will mean that the US won't be involved in Iraq's already bloody civil war. The US presence in Iraq has not prevented the Iraqi on Iraqi deaths & maimings. It's unlikely that there will be less blood in Iraq but US blood won't be added to the blood covering Iraq's ground when we leave Iraq.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a good start
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Jul 10, 2008 5:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
would be handing Eric Prince over in chains.

jdfu!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]