Many Iraqis say that the Sons of Iraq, a paramilitary force trained, funded, armed and supported by U.S. forces, is a carefully planned American project. Many others, however, believe the opposite.
Establishing the Sons of Iraq was a strategic plan to eliminate the Iraqi resistance and not to "confront" the crimes of al-Qaida, a lie the Iraqi resistance believed, al-Itijah al-Akhar, an Iraqi weekly newspaper, said Monday.
The clear light in uncovering the truths
The number of discussions on the position of the Sons of Iraq has increased. Very few people pay attention to the fact that al-Qaida sparked the formation of the Sons of Iraq. Al-Qaida took the chance of recruiting Iraqis and training them to fight. When al-Qaida plans failed, the U.S. forces took advantage of the situation and put the recruits on their side. Money was one aspect that helped U.S. forces to attract these factions.
It is wrong to say U.S. forces planned and created the Sons of Iraq. The U.S. forces had no advantage in waiting and bearing attacks on their troops until now. The fact that the United States has committed a mistake worse than it did in Vietnam is evidenced by the notion that, if they had the option, they would have controlled the insurgent groups.
To illustrate the point, the occupation forces have competent experts following the Iraqi scene very closely. Through their studies, these experts have been trying to find splits and disputes among the national resistance groups to weaken them.
The Sons of Iraq played an essential role in eliminating violence in Sunni areas where sectarian militias shed the blood of hundreds of innocent Iraqis. However, fighting al-Qaida hand-in-hand with U.S. forces is an unforgivable betrayal to Iraq. The Sons of Iraq will be punished as soon as the occupation forces withdraw.
The provincial elections, postponed until next year, are a point where the Iraqi people could start questioning the competency of the Iraqi government.
The provincial elections became a regional phenomenon after the U.N. envoy to Iraq, Staffan de Mistura, took the case to the Iranians. The Iraqi government has no knowledge of the results of the visit, the independent Addustour newspaper said Monday.
Do you have the right, de Mistura?
Negotiating the Iraqi provincial elections in Iran, de Mistura has turned the matter into one between the Iranians, the Americans and the Kurds. His visit to Iran has resulted in a deal between Iran and the United States that the Iraqi government is unaware of, oblivious to the fact that the elections are an Iraqi matter.
De Mistura visited Iran on Sept. 8 to discuss Iraqi factions disagreeing over matters related to the provincial elections.
The path de Mistura walked through as a U.N. employee exceeded his official capacity. He surprised all sides with his visit to Iran, representing an Iraqi case even when the Iraqi people and government opposed it. De Mistura was inconsiderate of the Iraqi political authority when he announced his visit and in his negotiations with the Iranian government.
By visiting Iran, de Mistura gave tacit permission to Iran to interfere with the internal affairs of Iraq as if Tehran had nothing to do with the chaos and devastation of Iraq. It is doubtful that de Mistura visited Iran merely to raise Iraqi points of dispute. Many Iraqis interpret the visit as a plot against the Iraqi government and its people.
Discussing the elections with an outside power leads to negative consequences. The Iraqi people fear the visit would put pressure on de Mistura to allow Iran to interfere with Iraq as a payback to Iran, while the United States, meanwhile, tries to eliminate Iranian threats against U.S. interests. This visit opens the door to question the process of building the new state of Iraq. Harm to the Iraqi government and the legislative authority will be the only outcome of de Mistura to Iran.
The year of 2011 has emerged as the starting point for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. It is unlikely that the United States will ever completely leave Iraq, however.
For Washington, setting up a timetable for withdrawal means decreasing the number of troops, no more, no less, al-Ittihad newspaper of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan said Monday.
The meaning of "withdrawal"
Withdrawal only means ending the role of supporting the current political process. However, this support is also one of the highlights of the long-term strategic agreement between Iraq and the United States. The idea of "protecting" the political process is in the best interest of the United States. By signing the agreement, Iraq would no longer present a threat to U.S. interests in the region.
The Iraqi government would benefit if it signed the agreement, though it would bring criticism and dissatisfaction from the Iraqi public. A conflict between the Sadr Movement, an ideological movement loyal to radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr, and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is a main obstacle to signing the agreement that aims to keep U.S. forces in Iraq.
On the one hand, signing the agreement would protect Maliki and keep him in power. On the other hand, it would protect the U.S. forces from dealing with a new power in case of a change in the Iraqi government.
A timetable would provide a temporary solution until the situation on the ground is more stable. The U.S. administration agreeing to withdraw American forces is partially a plot to later employ their plan to never completely leave Iraq.
