Iraq Press Roundup

In spite of claims of an improved security situation in Iraq, many analysts see it as temporary and unstable.

The U.S. Defense Department described the security situation in Iraq as vulnerable. The Pentagon blamed this vulnerability on the ongoing disputes between the major political powers in Iraq, the weekly al-Basaer newspaper of the Association of Muslim Scholars said Thursday.

The fallacy in the Pentagon

Blaming Iraqi political parties for instability is another falsehood created by the Pentagon to mislead Congress, the American people and U.S. allies. It is intended to legitimize the presence of the U.S. military in Iraq. Arab governments, however, are supporting this new lie in the same way they supported all the others that led to bloodshed and displacement in Iraq, the newspaper said.

Political disputes did not occur prior to the U.S. occupation, which only brought greed to Baghdad. It should be remembered also that some of the first plans implemented by Washington in Iraq after the "liberation" were the ethnic and sectarian division of the country.

Furthermore, it was Washington that allowed the Iranians to enter Iraq and meddle in its internal affairs. The United States also put people in power in Baghdad who had strong ties with the Islamic Republic, which opened the door to the death squads now roaming the country.

Seeing the disintegration of Iraq and fearing the same fate, regional countries are left with no other option but to agree with the evil plans of the United States.

U.S. military forces will remain in Iraq regardless of which presidential candidate replaces President George Bush in the White House, Baghdad's al-Sabaah newspaper said Thursday.

The way to the White House

The reason the Bush administration insists on signing the long-term security pact with Iraq is to take the decision out of the hands of the next president. Regardless of whether a Republican or a Democrat takes over the White House, there are no plans for a troop withdrawal.

Republican nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Democratic contender Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois said in recent debates the United States went to Iraq to "win," not withdraw. It should be noted, the newspaper said, that it was former President Bill Clinton who passed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998.

McCain echoed the Republican sentiment that U.S. forces have no intention of leaving Iraq when he said the military would remain there for 100 years. This sends the message that the Republican Party is willing to fight indefinitely to win the war, and it will be difficult to overcome that tenacious policy.

For his part, Obama has altered his stance on Iraq as it becomes apparent he is apprehensive about considering a troop withdrawal, suggesting Washington's strategy on Iraq will not shift with the next president.

The long-term security arrangement currently in negotiation between Iraq and the United States is the focus of disputes between political parties in Baghdad. The agreement is a key national interest to Iraq in order to build its diplomatic relations in the Middle East, al-Ittihad newspaper of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan said Thursday.

What Iraqis want from the strategic agreement

Debates and disagreements over the various articles of the agreement are natural and encouraged. However, it is unacceptable for political parties to point the finger at supporters of the agreement before it is discussed and agreed upon by both sides to the negotiation.

The opposition among the Iraqi parties comes from those who supported the former regime and those who care little about the sovereignty of the country. The opposition parties also are the ones that support terrorism, the paper said.

The Iraqi government, therefore, has made the decision to discuss the articles of the agreement with U.S. officials in private before agreeing on a final draft in order to avoid confusion and "cheap rumors."

The Iraqi people must remember Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and U.S. President George Bush in November agreed to preserve the sovereignty of Iraq, a decision that prevents unequal arrangements between the two countries.

Signing the long-term agreement will allow Iraq to eliminate its debts, revive the economy and protect the country from future conflicts amid growing instability in the Middle East.