Iraq Press Roundup

Iraqi political parties draw their attention to the timetable established for the withdrawal of U.S. forces after they insisted that the situation in Iraq required the assistance of foreign forces.

Many Iraqi political figures show their interest in securing sovereignty for Iraq by demanding a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces as a condition to pass the long-term strategic agreement between the United States and Iraq, al-Basaer newspaper of the Association of Muslim Scholars said Thursday.

Withdrawal or legitimize the occupation?

Iraqi politicians had to demand a timetable years ago, especially considering U.S. forces planned on building a local military institution and security system to be in charge of the situation. U.S. forces lost interest in operating in the streets because the resistance caused them great financial and human loss. If U.S. forces agreed on a timetable, it would only mean that they aim to keep their forces in bases while they roll the dice with the rest of the country. Building the biggest U.S. Embassy in the world in Baghdad teaches Iraqis that the United States is not leaving Iraq.

The plan for withdrawal doesn't mean the United States admits to defeat. The United States wants to reach a point where it stops suffering casualties in Iraq, and withdrawal is one step toward that goal. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., if he wins the U.S. presidential election, would change nothing regarding the invasion of Iraq. He would order a pullout of the troops for their own safety, not for the sake of ending the occupation.

The United States intends to put Iraq through a special political and military position. The United States also wants the Iraqi government to improve its ability to control the situation for the safety of U.S. troops.

The relationship between the United States and the Kurdistan Regional Government is unique in comparison with the government of Saddam Hussein or the Shiite opposition in the south in the 1990s. This relationship faces many obstacles, however.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Turkey's refusal to participate in "liberating" Iraq granted the KRG a strategic position among powers in the region that assisted the United States, the daily Azzaman newspaper said Thursday.

Is Kurdistan a new ally of Washington?

The U.S. forces had participated with the Kurdish Peshmerga, the main Kurdish force, and with the Kurdish political leadership. The Kurdish officials aimed to maintain a good relationship with Washington and Ankara in order to get Turkish approval for the war.

Turkish refusal to participate with the United States in invading Iraq led to the end of Turkish strategic domination and support from Washington. The Peshmerga during the first week of the invasion, however, took part more in looting than in fighting, yet the support for the U.S. forces played a role in developing a strong relationship with Washington.

U.S. diplomats, therefore, feel less compassionate for Ankara. The Kurds, on the other hand, have been generous with U.S. officials. Added to that, the might of the Kurdish leadership to stand up again after the ethnic-cleansing campaign they faced in the 1990s drove U.S. officials to admire the Kurds.

The United States helped the Kurds confront the wave of Kurdish migration from the other parts of the country as Saddam Hussein forced them out of certain cities, notably Kirkuk. When U.S. diplomats came back in 2003, they witnessed a developmental and economical revival which strengthened the relationship between the two sides. For that, the Kurds began hiring former U.S. experts, analysts and even former officials to assist them in Iraq and to represent them in Washington.

Kurdish and American cooperation in the liberation of Iraq resulted in the Kurds being superior to others and prompted expectations of rewards from the United States.

Getting rid of the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein has pulled the curtain down on one of the darkest stages in the history of Iraq.

The fascist Baath Party had disassembled components of Iraqi society, resulting in a shattered state infrastructure and national wealth, the Kurdish al-Taakhi newspaper said Thursday.

The crises in Iraq after the dictatorship, infrastructure crisis or political parties

The positions of current political parties differ in terms of their public support base. Radical elements dominated their political programs on more than one level. These radical elements appeared in the political field as behavior that contradicted the establishment of modern society.

Individual dictators who expressed opposition to others' beliefs and opinions supported this image of contradiction. With the presence of the figures who believed in the mentality of conspiracy and coups, a lack of understanding and dialogue intensified. Absence of coexistence and debate among parties lead to the elimination of honest competition between political parties.

During Saddam's times, secret actions and operations emerged as a way to reject the reality on the ground. These actions were put off because of the brutality of the dictatorship, punishing those who oppose the government.

This resulted in losing public support, a lesson the current government should remember. On the other hand, Iraqi political parties have many, but unclear and inexperienced, methods to deal with opposition in Iraq that may become oppressive. Some of the hardest situations political parties face are the demands to follow their ideologies, which create crises that are hard to solve.

The political process in Iraq is in need of national and social attention. Ideological awareness is least available for political parties when they oppose oppression, all forms of slavery, and marginalize other opinions.