Highlights

 
Quotable
Society has arisen out of the works of peace; the essence of society is peacemaking. Peace and not war is the father of all things.
Ludwig von Mises
Original Blog US Casualties Contact Donate

 
March 16, 2006

Withdrawal May Not Mean Liberation


by Jim Lobe

*with Isam Rashid

BAGHDAD - Talk of withdrawal has been dogging the administrations of the United States and Britain for months. Recently the Sunday Telegraph in Australia and the Daily Mirror in Britain ran reports quoting a senior British official that the two countries will withdraw by 2007.

The United States was quick to deny these claims and to reassure the public that U.S. forces will remain in Iraq until the job is done.

Iraqis have their own doubts over such claims.

Ali al-Khalidi, an Iraqi shop owner told IPS he did not believe the rumors of withdrawal because "they have every benefit in Iraq and everyday they steal more and more from Iraq."

Some Iraqis suggest that the withdrawal rumors might indicate the resistance is winning. Since the occupation began on April 9, 2003, there have been elements of resistance, some peaceful, some armed.

According to Ma'ad Ahmed, a 33-year-old unemployed Iraqi, after withdrawal the resistance "will control Iraq, and they have that right because they lost so much money and blood to liberate Iraq."

Others, such as Zaid Hadi, an Iraqi barber, feel that withdrawal will signal a victory both for the resistance and Iraq's new politicians.

Hadi also told IPS that he did not believe the rumors were true, because, "it's one of their lies like other promises; we trusted and respected the U.S. government before the occupation, but now we discovered they were liars."

Hadi also feels that the United States has driven Iraq towards a civil war. Many Iraqis blame the apparent descent of Iraq into civil war on the failure of the occupation to provide security to Iraqi civilians.

Whatever the cause for the sectarian tensions in Iraq, Dumiya feels that withdrawal could mean disaster.

"I'm afraid if they withdraw their troops it will be civil war in Iraq," she said. "Some Shia have begun to hate Sunni and some Sunni hate Shia. We are frightened by this, because if this grows, it will be civil war." Iraqis continue to be greatly divided on the issue of withdrawal.

The British government has made an announcement that it will withdraw ten percent of its troops as early as May. This announcement comes amidst the Bush administration's continued assertions that any defined date for withdrawal would only embolden the terrorists.

Ma'ad Ahmed feels that only political discontent within the United States and Britain will lead to a withdrawal of troops. Some of this is already being seen in the British announcement after Prime Minister Tony Blair's recent loss of popularity.

Ma'ad told IPS that Iraqis did not need the Multinational Forces to remain "because Iraqi people don't want to fight each other. For example, after the occupation there was no Iraqi government for three or four months and nothing bad happened. This proves that Iraqis want to live in peace."

The mainstream press has presented the looming specter of civil war as the counterpoint to rumors of withdrawal.

The Bush administration has adamantly denied the possibility of civil war emerging in Iraq. It now appears that the opinion of many Iraqis on this has converged with that of the Bush administration.

Ma'ad Ahmed told IPS that even the bombing of such an important landmark as the al-Askariya shrine would not lead to civil war. "I think everything will be okay in one month, the main reason for no security is the occupation. After the U.S. and UK withdraw their troops from Iraq, the resistance will control Iraq and they will keep security."

Although many seem to agree that civil war is not inevitable, Iraqis place the responsibility for security squarely on the occupation, the Multinational Forces Iraq.

"They promised to keep the security, but we found they work to make civil war in Iraq, and (U.S. defense secretary) Donald Rumsfeld should be ashamed of his last declaration, because it means U.S. troops are not responsible to help the Iraqi army," said Zaid Hadi.

Rumsfeld recently declared that if a civil war breaks out, the United States will depend on the Iraqi army to provide security and keep the peace in Iraq.

With the recent attacks in Sadr City and reprisal killings of more than 80 Iraqis in the 24 hours afterwards, sectarian tension is certain to continue.

Iraqis are understandably more concerned about their daily safety than whether officials are considering withdrawing, or bolstering troops this week.

Ali al-Khalidi says the two are intrinsically linked. "I hope to see the day when the U.S. and UK withdraw their troops from Iraq. It will be like a new sun rising on Iraq, because we are living in darkness under occupation."


comments on this article?
 
 
Archives

  • US Jews Open to Palestinian Unity Govt
    3/26/2009

  • Bipartisan Experts Urge 'Partnership' With Russia
    3/17/2009

  • Obama Administration Insists It's Neutral in Salvador Poll
    3/14/2009

  • NGOs Hail Congressional Moves to Ease Embargo
    3/12/2009

  • Call to 'Resist and Deter' Nuclear Iran Gains Key Support
    3/7/2009

  • Washington Ends Diplomatic Embargo of Syria
    3/4/2009

  • Diplomatic, Aid Spending Set to Rise Under Obama Budget
    2/28/2009

  • Many Muslims Reject Terror Tactics, Back Some Goals
    2/26/2009

  • Lugar Report Calls for New Cuba Policy
    2/24/2009

  • U.S.-Israel Storm Clouds Ahead?
    2/20/2009

  • Calls Mount for Obama to Appoint 'Truth Commission'
    2/20/2009

  • Washington's Praise of Venezuelan Vote Suggests D├ętente
    2/19/2009

  • Rightward Shift in Israeli Polls Creates New Headaches
    2/13/2009

  • US Advised to Back Somalia Reconciliation Efforts
    2/12/2009

  • Hawks Urge Boosting Military Spending
    2/5/2009

  • More Troops, More Worries,
    Less Consensus on Afghanistan
    2/4/2009

  • Report: Most Citizens Kept in Dark on Govt Spending
    2/2/2009

  • Obama Raises Hopes of
    Mideast Experts
    1/28/2009

  • Obama Picks Israel-Arab, Afghanistan-Pakistan Negotiators
    1/23/2009

  • Rights Groups Applaud Move to Halt Gitmo Trials
    1/22/2009

  • Obama Offers Internationalist Vision
    1/21/2009

  • Around the World, High Hopes for Obama
    1/20/2009

  • Liberals, Realists Set to Clash in Obama Administration
    1/19/2009

  • Obama Urged to Take Bold Steps Toward Cuba Normalization
    1/15/2009

  • Clinton Stresses 'Cooperative Engagement,' 'Smart Power'
    1/14/2009

  • Bush Foreign Policy Legacy Widely Seen as Disastrous
    1/14/2009

  • Networks' Int'l News Coverage at Record Low in 2008
    1/6/2009

  • Amnesty Calls on Rice to Drop 'Lopsided' Gaza Stance
    1/3/2009

  • Israeli Attack May Complicate Obama's Plans
    12/30/2008

  • Report: Recognizing Hamas Could Help Peace
    12/19/2008

  • Business Groups Support Dismantling Cuba Embargo
    12/8/2008

  • Mumbai Massacre Seen as Major Blow to Regional Strategy
    12/5/2008

  • Obama Urged to Quickly Engage Iran, Syria
    12/3/2008

  • Diplomacy, Multilateralism Stressed by Obama Team
    12/2/2008

  • Obama Foreign Policy: Realists to Reign?
    11/28/2008

  • Hemispheric Group Calls for Major Changes in Americas Policy
    11/25/2008

  • Greybeards Urge Overhaul of Global Governance
    11/21/2008

  • Intelligence Analysts See Multi-Polar, Risky World By 2025
    11/21/2008

  • Obama Urged to Strengthen Ties with UN
    11/20/2008

  • Obama-Tied Think-Tank Calls for Pakistan Shift
    11/18/2008

  • Obama Advised to Forgo More Threats to Iran
    11/17/2008

  • First, Close Gitmo,
    Say Rights Groups
    11/11/2008

  • Obama's Foreign Policy:
    No Sharp Break From Bush
    11/11/2008

  • Coca Cultivation Up Despite Six Years of Plan Colombia
    11/7/2008

  • Obama to Seek Global Re-engagement, But How Much?
    11/6/2008

  • Two, Three, Many Grand Bargains?
    11/3/2008

  • Moving Towards a 'Grand Bargain' in Afghanistan
    10/19/2008

  • Top Ex-Diplomats Slam 'Militarization' of Foreign Policy
    10/16/2008

  • Bush Set to Go With a Whimper, Not a Bang
    10/15/2008

  • Pakistan 'Greatest Single Challenge' to Next President
    10/8/2008

  • Senate Passes Nuke Deal Over Escalation Fears
    10/3/2008

  • Brief Talks With Syria Spur Speculation
    10/1/2008

  • Iran Resolution Shelved in Rare Defeat for AIPAC
    9/27/2008

  • Bipartisan Group Urges Deeper Diplomacy with Muslim World
    9/25/2008

  • White House Still Cautious on Georgia
    9/6/2008

  • US' Somalia Policy Likely to Bring Blowback
    9/4/2008

  • Iran Could Reap Benefits of U.S.-Russian Tensions
    8/28/2008

  • A Really Bad Couple of Weeks for Pax Americana
    8/24/2008

  • Success of Attack on Iran's Nuclear Program Doubtful
    8/9/2008

  • US Gets No Traction in the Middle East
    8/5/2008

  • Gates Strategy Stresses Unconventional Warfare
    8/1/2008

  • Air Force Think Tank Advises Against Iran Attack
    7/31/2008

  • Pakistani PM May Be Pincushion for U.S. Frustration
    7/26/2008

  • Realists Urge Bush to Drop Iran Precondition
    7/23/2008

  • McCain Knee-Capped by Maliki
    7/22/2008

  • Jim Lobe, works as Inter Press Service's correspondent in the Washington, D.C., bureau. He has followed the ups and downs of neo-conservatives since well before their rise in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

    Reproduction of material from any original Antiwar.com pages
    without written permission is strictly prohibited.
    Copyright 2003 Antiwar.com