Middle East

He Who Requests U.S. Support Is a Traitor!


Information about the next U.S. step in Iraq is conflicting. There are unclear talk and givens about silent executive steps, particularly indicating that certain parties in Washington want to re-occupy Iraq but under prior guarantees.

In Washington, certain parties are telling the Iraqis today that “We are ready to re-occupy your country, but you have to form new government which we determine its structure, while the neighboring countries, especially Iran, should provide guarantees not to describe our intervention as occupation, neither to resist it. The religious authority should also provide legal cover for our presence.”

“In return, we will ensure you the silence of Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and we promise you – only promise you – to eliminate ‘ISIL’ (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) and military rebel forces”!

Americans are dumb and those who believe them or show that they need them are dumber. If certain effective powers in Iraq, or in some neighboring countries, do believe that the return of the U.S. military to Iraq can achieve security and stability, then they have understood wrongly; However, the most dangerous thing is that some figures are trying to consider the request for a U.S. intervention a normal demand, despite that some of them has forgotten that those who might forgave them in 2003, had did it just because the U.S. invasion was not waiting for permission from anyone, and because the opponent (Saddam Hussein), who was ousted, was rejected by the people’s majority and was a source of damage for all the neighboring countries.

But why an Iraqi, who is sane, national, or willing for independence, should ask the U.S. forces to intervene to support him? And against whom? And for what purpose?

Does anyone in Iraq believe that the return of U.S. occupation provides a stable ruling or a security solution for the problem of Takfiri movements? Have our past experiences showed that the U.S. is already capable to protect its soldiers before asking whether it is really capable of confronting terrorism? Is it true that among us are people who believe that Americans represent security, military, political and even economic guarantees?

No need to debate this point, but there is a need to say that all begging for foreign intervention – whether American or non-American – is nothing but an expression of an entire deficit. It is a signal that the applicant, regardless of its shape, color, doctrine or trend, is mean and vile who wants to live as a slave of colonists and an agent for the occupier. He wants to be a follower of an occupying force that has killed millions of our nation’s people and continues to support the war criminals in forms of bands, governments or armies. Those forms do not stop for one moment to kill us and steal our wealth and our rights.

It is also necessary to decisively say that “Any person, party, government, state, group, sect or block that calls for the occupation in order to prove its rule has no moral, political, humanitarian or legal immunity.” Iraq can no longer bear such risks. He who finds himself unable to cope with the challenges or to meet the current requirements, has no other choice but to retreat and leave.

The Takfiri Front is getting united and the Resisting Front is capable of getting united, but under the condition to be convinced that the 2003 circumstances have been changed.

Moreover, the responsibility of the decisive confrontation against ‘ISIL’ and its supporting powers or backing governments and organs, requires thinking in an entirely different way. It requires to firstly admit the failure in building half of a state, or half of an army capable of maintaining security. Secondly, to admit the failure in creating political climates that complicate the task of enemies and adversaries. Thirdly, to admit that insistence on choosing the security solution requires real men, forces and mechanisms of action other than those that exist today in the hands of who has the reins of power in Iraq.

He who has believed that the ongoing war in Syria would remain within the borders of Syria, has tried – childishly – to distance himself in a way that implicitly reflects his tendency toward joining the strongest party, which is the feature that characterizes large groups in our Arab countries.

Today, after forces of terrorism have got united in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and Egypt deriving their strength from the criminal governments in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other countries, the logical response should be that the other front is to be united since it is able to create facts on ground preventing the success of the rebels’ plan. The experience of Syria, which succeeded – after a year and a half of the crisis – in creating cooperation mechanisms between local and regional powers involved in the confrontation, have shown the possibility of achieving significant gains and thwarting the other project.

Today, rebels are raising the banner of independence for sectarian and confessional reasons, they are paving their way through series of crimes and massacres committed because of awful racial and sectarian background. Their position finds itself acceptable in more than one Arab country, and will also find assistant. Creating such a case is not impossible due to political, economic, demographic and security reasons, but the problem lies in every delay for uniting efforts to face it.

The U.S. remains the headline of evil, and when it looks for a moment as if facing the criminals themselves, this does not reflect transformation of stance, but reflects it is being forced to adopt special tactic. However, he who is capable of confronting extremist groups and of dropping the U.S. and allies away, can achieve the actual goal of independence as well.

Circumstances of 2003 are no longer valid for today.

Back to top button