Speaking after talks with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who echoed the U.S. call for a government of national unity in Iraq, the normally calm and diplomatic Jaafari said Iraq knew its own best interests.
"When someone asks us whether we want a sectarian government the answer is 'no we do not want a sectarian government' -- not because the U.S. ambassador says so or issues a warning," he told a news conference.
"...We do not need anybody to remind us, thank you."
"Sectarian" means of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect. A Religious sect, for example. The Shiites, to be even more specific.
U.S. ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad said on Monday the United States, which led the 2003 invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, was investing billions of dollars in Iraq and did not want to see that money go to support sectarian politics.
This is the catch-22 of the Iraqi Quagmire. President Bush says we are there to support Democracy in the Middle East. Indeed, according to him, we want the whole of the Middle East to follow the principles of Democracy and self determination for their unwashed masses. He now says we invaded Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people from the tyranny of the few.
Putting aside our feelings and opinions about the Iraqi war for a moment, let's accept the above as true. The Catch 22 is that the people of Iraq, through the Democratic process, can choose their own leaders, who then can seek a sectarian government if they wish. It is called Self Determination. According to Bush, it is why nearly 2,300 Americans died. So that the Iraqi people can choose for themselves.
And they have choosen for themselves. And like the Palestinians, it looks more and more like they prefer theocracy. Like they prefer alliance with Iran.
So who are we to tell the Iraqi people what to do? Who cares if we invested billions upon billions of dollars in Iraq? Who cares if we sent 2,300 of our youth to die for Iraqi freedom? Those soldiers will die in vain if we violate Iraq's democracy. And those soldiers will die in vain if Iraq becomes a theocracy.
And that, by definition, is a fine mess.
"The international community, particularly those of us who have played a part in liberating Iraq have an interest in ... a prosperous, stable and democratic Iraq," [British Foreign Minister Jack] Straw said.
I see. Moving the goalposts again. Now Iraq has to be prosperous and stable. It is not enough that they can govern themselves democratically.
As we know, Iraq, as it is currently constituted will never be prosperous and stable. They may have elections. Their government may be democratically elected, but their people elect leaders who would prefer sectarianism and theocracy.
Many here at Daily Kos spectulate that Bush will simply declare victory and start bringing the troops home prior to the midterms. Of course he won't really be bringing home all of the troops, just like 50,000 out of 150,000. He has no plans to abandon Iraq given all of the money he and his contributors have invested there, and given all the money that can still be made over there.
But I foresee a different problem that is fast approaching reality. What if Iraq demands our withdrawal? Our complete and total withdrawal?
I see evidence of this already:
The governor of Iraq's Kerbala province, Aqil al-Khazali, said on Tuesday he had suspended all cooperation with U.S. forces because U.S. security staff last week used police dogs to search government buildings.
Many Muslims consider it degrading to have dogs brought into their homes or offices.
With the newly releasted Abu Gharib pictures, and that British beating video, and with continued attacks day and night against the occupation forces, and now with the rising tensions between Iraq's elected officials and our leaders, I can see Iraq demanding our withdrawal immediately.
And what happens after we leave?
Iraq will descend into civil war. The Shiites will ally themselves with Iran and all old scores will be settled with the Sunnis. And maybe with the Kurds too, but Turkey may get involved and I think Iran may want to avoid that.
And in the end, we will have an Iran-Iraq superstate, governed theocratically, and armed with nuclear weapons.
This is all the result of our invasion of Iraq.
Thus, this result is all Bush's fault.
The wiser and more strategic choice, as we all knew, was to continue the inspections and sanctions, effectively keeping Saddam in a box and under control. That way, we could have dealt with Iran and North Korea. And had we followed that course, the world would have been much safer today.
But instead, we acted like Dr. Frankenstein.
We created a monster.
Comments are closed on this story.