Referring to a comment by Mary: Hi Mary, you are most welcome to this forum. The post you are looking for was posted on Aug. 14, 2005, under the title “Pajama War Games”. So please look into Aug. Archives. For my part I also think that post to be one of the most important that I have made. Some other friends ask what would happen if U.S. troops withdraw hastily. I still think the scenario that I have painted then remains valid. One remark that creep Al Zawahiri made in his latest video, which was aired on that favorite Network of the terrorists, the Qatari Al Jazeera, has some truth in it, he said something to this effect: “If the United States with its mighty capabilities and its Warplanes, tanks etc. could not defeat the “Mujahideen”, how could the army of “the agents and hypocrites” (as he called the Iraqi Forces) be able to do that on their own.”
I hope my previous post is not misunderstood. I do not oppose dialogue and political means and methods; they are of course, quite necessary. However, it is as the proverb goes “Not what you do but the way that you do it”. That has been the main problem with the Americans in Iraq right from the start. None of the measures that were implemented can honestly be considered wrong, including the dissolution of Saddam’s Army and Security Forces (and this is where I profoundly disagree with all the critics of that decision). It is just that the style of doing it and the timing always seemed not quite right. What I am trying to say is that the U.S. should never loose sight of the strategic essence of its position in Iraq, no matter what political maneuvers are undertaken. It was essentially an act of liberation of a majority from the yoke of a minority. It is that deposed minority that is waging war, together with their foreign supporters who are motivated by a variety of agendas, ranging from the desperados of Al Qaeda to the scheming of regional powers trying to settle scores with the U.S., their own fears and problems being of main concern, while the Iraqi problems being simply means to selfish aims. Indeed the array of enemies lined up against the United States and its allies including the Iraqis, should never be underestimated. The fight is dead serious and the stakes are sky high, at least from the point of view of the enemies, not to mention the Iraqi people themselves.
So, accordingly, the fundamental base of support of the U.S. (even if often tacit and undeclared openly), remains that majority that stand to benefit the most from the change. While efforts are made to persuade and draw elements of the disgruntled minority into the political process and away from violence, the strategists should never loose sight of that fact and should never jeopardize their most important asset. Indeed this war is quite unique, in that it has initiated a very real revolution in the classical sense of the word. I mean a real revolution is defined as an "upheaval that results in deposing one ruling class and replacing it with another". That was the case in the American Revolution, French Revolution, Russian Revolution etc.; also the 1958 revolution in Iraq can be considered as belonging to the list. What is happening in Iraq is a classical revolution initiated by foreign intervention, because the Americans were a very special kind of invaders. I mean they never had any serious intention or will to impose any kind of ready made regime and left it to the Iraqis themselves to decide, and never mind the propaganda that talks about "puppets", "agents" and the like. There really are no agents or puppets in Iraq, and all the political groups are quite genuine representatives of their constituents, whether on sectarian, ethnic or ideological basis. If there are some opportunists, they are quite insignificant, and have not really been encouraged much by the Americans themselves. And these political groups will always determine their position according to their own interests and that of the people they represent, and consequently, the U.S. cannot count on blind allegiance from anybody important in the political scene and has to be very careful in its maneuverings, for the friend of yesterday can turn into the foe of tomorrow if circumstances leading to that change take place.
That was the point I was trying to make, in the hope that it might reach some people who are in the decision-making circles. For my part, I remain utterly convinced, that it is in the profound interest of our country and people and their future, to forge a lasting strategic alliance with U.S.; and that the Super Power can render a most needed help and protection to forge the kind of future that we are dreaming of. Furthermore, the American action in Iraq, regardless of its original motivations and causes, represents a godsend to the country and an opportunity that is not likely to happen again. And besides, the U.S. has made such a huge investment in blood and treasure, that to retreat and fail should be quite unthinkable and would have dire consequences on its future as a World Power, not to mention the War on Terror. Thus there is a fundamental convergence of interests between the Iraqi People and the Americans, to make this Project a success; and so it shall be despite all odds; God’s willing so it shall be.