Why US Troops Should Stay in Iraq

By: Ali Rawaf

Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki and US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates discuss US withdrawal during Gates" recent visit to Iraq

US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates visited Iraq last week. In his visit, Gates asked Iraqi officials to makeup their minds about whether they want the US troops to stay in Iraq. This marks the first time the Obama Administration mentions longer US presence in Iraq.

The Iraqis are split on whether they want American soldiers to remain in the country. Spokesmen from the Ministries of Defense and Internal Affairs have said the Iraqi military and police forces are ready to take the task of protecting the country on their own. Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki has been consistent in his public comments about abiding by the State of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which outline US military withdraws by August of this year. In press conferences in March, Maliki went to the extent of saying that “Iraq is the safest country in the region,” citing the violence sweeping other Middle Eastern countries, where protests are taking place.

But these comments made by Maliki and other Iraqi officials don’t reflect the reality in Iraq. A few days ago, a group of armed men, set off a car bomb in front of the City Council building in the province of Sallahuddin. After, those men stormed into the building and took everyone in the building as hostages. Two of the hostages were members of the City Council.  A few minutes later, American soldiers arrived on the scene and were followed by the Iraqi Army. The story ends by the Iraqi army throwing grenade and killing the terrorists and everyone else in the building, including the City Council members. If this story tells anything, it is that the Iraqi military is by no means ready to handle the county’s security. This is not to mention the recent escalation in the number of car bombs, kidnapping, and assassinations.

Nevertheless, Muqtada al-Sadir, the anti-American Shiite cleric and al-Mahdi militia leader, called on his followers to go out and protest Gate’s comments and ask for complete military withdrawal. Muqtada wasn’t the only politician who denounced Gates’ comments. This diverts Iraqis’ attention from protesting against poor service and government corruption to be focused once again, against America and the West.

Iraq needs the American troops to stay. Even though Iraq is getting very slowly better, the chances of success are still high. Iraqi people now want to be part of the political process. They voted and they are asking for better policies and a better government through demonstrations and protests. More importantly, the civil society is getting more robust. It would be a waste, considering the massive number of Iraqi civilian casualties and the lost lives of American soldiers, to suddenly pull out and leave the country vulnerable to terrorism and dangerous regional influence. Wikileaks documents show that many of the Iraqi politicians also want the US troops to stay and admit the need for their presence, despite what they say publically.  

The protests in the Middle East might have shifted the American Administration’s attention to the region. For a while, the Administration is criticized for less engagement in Iraq. But Iraq’s future will have an effect on the outcomes of the transition in the Middle East. The Obama Administration might have just realized that. And Gates’ comments might be the early signs of that shifted attention.  

Iraq: Guns vs. Butter, Butter Wins

By Ali Rawaf

The American victory against Saddam Hussein's Army came mostly by air force attacks. The US outmatched Iraq's air force capabilities and was able to swipe of the Iraqi army in just a couple of weeks. The air force has also been one of Gaddafi’s main tools for devastating the rebel forces and gaining momentum once again.

Iraq’s air force stands weaker today than it’s ever had. The current aircraft capabilities don’t go farther than transportation purposes. So, if Iran was to attack us today with its overwhelming air force, it can demolish whatever Iraqi military capability in no time (if the US isn’t around anymore).

Two years ago, Iraq’s defense ministry bid for a number of fighter jets from the United States and won an unprecedented support for its bid from the latter. Iraq was able to order more than 90 F-16’s. In February, 18 of them were ready for purchase.

In February, however, Iraqis went on the streets and protested poor services, one of which was the national food program, which provides millions of Iraqis with basic food supplies such as flour, rice, and sugar. Iraq hasn’t been able to pay for these massive food subsidies partially due to the massive salaries Iraqi officials have granted themselves.

To appease the crowds, the Iraqi government diverted funds that were allocated for the purchase of the F-16’s to buy more flour, sugar, and rice. However, the pilots who traveled to the US to get training on flying the jets will continue their program. 

I wouldn’t say this is the smartest move and makes me feel quite ambivalent.

On one hand, it is a good sign. If Saddam Hussein was still in power, he wouldn’t have given a second thought to purchasing the fighter jets. For him, advancing the military would have been more important than feeding the hungry crowds. On the other hand, this kind of move leaves more space for other countries to practice regional dominance, something that isn’t in Iraq’s best interest. I think the Iraqi government could have diverted money from other programs to purchase the F-16’s, all of which will be pending until Iraq has the money to purchase them.

Note: Guns vs Butter is a symbol for the economic policy of a government insofar as spending is allocated for either military or social purposes

In Facing Protests, Iraq's Democracy Looks More Authoritarian

By: Ali Rawaf

Iraqi Forces surrounding Tahrir Square, where Iraqis protested poor services and high unemployment

Iraq, a democracy where elections were almost free and fair, didn’t treat its protestors any better than the rest of the authoritarian regimes in the region. The government took quick and violent actions to prevent Iraq’s protests from gaining momentum.

Since the inception of the protests, Maliki branded the activists who organized the protests as Baathists and member of al-Qaeda who were looking for opportunities to bring down the Iraqi government, despite repeated declarations that the protests were aimed at improving basic services and unemployment, not at removing the current government. This move, previously employed against political opponents, discouraged many people from voicing their discontent in the protests.  Another fear-mongering announcement from Maliki’s office was humorous. In it, Maliki predicted that terrorists dressed in police uniforms will beat the protestors so people should be cautious.

On the eve of the protest, a curfew was imposed by the Prime Minister’s office (The Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces) until further notice. On the day of the protests, many of Iraq’s Sunni provinces had imposed curfews. Despite the curfew, people marched down the streets and expressed their anger with the current status of services and employment.

Freedom of the press, a constitutional right, was violated as well. Iraqi and foreign TV networks weren’t allowed to cover the protests live, therefore, people wouldn’t be encouraged to come join the protests after watching them on TV.

Journalists who were on the grounds of the protests were beaten, humiliated, and imprisoned by the Iraqi Army and police forces. Journalists, who were freed later, said they had seen leaders of civil society groups, actors, activists, and local civilians imprisoned and beaten by the Iraqi forces.

The protestors themselves were hosed with water cannons, beaten, and imprisoned.

The central government and Parliament found a way of diverting the blame onto local governments instead of taking responsibility for the shortcomings in their performance for the past years. Governors of two provinces had resigned and a few other governors are expected to do the same soon.  

To appease the protestors, Maliki and the parliament, cut their salaries by 20%, though originally intended to cut 50%. They also promised to give more food aid for the poor, place a halt on a newly approved import tax, and to improve basic services within a 100 days. Critics are skeptical  that such promises will be fulfilled.

If I could draw one main theme of the protests, it would be regret. Iraqis risked their lives on March 7^th 2010 to vote for a new government. A year later, that government hasn’t been formed completely, with key ministries such as the Interior and Defense still vacant. The very little faith Iraqis had that the past election cycle was going to bring about change, has been lost. The picture shows an Iraqi biting his index finger, a gesture of regret in Iraqi culture. His finger is still painted purple with voting ink.