US Presence In Iraq Needs New Strategical Approach

The US military presence in Iraq posed a major problem with the local population who regarded them as invaders with the army and its allies occupying their territory.

It is for this reason why so many insurgents thrive in most parts of the country to oppose their presence. No matter how many infrastructures and public works they had been restored or built they are still perceived by the locals as an uninvited guest to their land.

The longer the US military and its allies stay in their territory the more they are felt unwanted by the majority of the Iraqi people.

The foremost reason probably is the lack of knowledge by the US military on the local people’s culture despite their objective that they are there trying to secure and help them.

It is no secret to the local populace, that the US presence is associated with American interest to their oil and a tactical maneuver by the US to neutralizing any solid formation of Arab blocking force with anti American or anti west sentiments that could be detrimental to the American vested interests in the region if left unchecked.

The establishment of an Israel state at the expense of the Palestinian people was the turning event in the middle east’s history that for the first time had the US presence and influence felt in the region.

It was also a strategical ploy to leverage of any political or military solidification of the Arab nations when the US informally annexes Israel as its virtual state.

It has qualified the latter as the recipient and beneficiary of the multi million dollar annual dole out of economic aid to sustain its existence. As long as the Arab nations disagree, they can never be united on a common ground to protect their interests and culture.

The second probable reason, is that prolong US military and its allies presence would warrant polluting their Islamic culture by western culture that would paved the way to social permissiveness or openness in the guise of democratic freedom.

Social permissiveness and openness as practiced by the west is not allowed and a social taboo in Islamic society which has regarded such issue as purely private.

Islamic culture cannot be separated within the society because it served as the framework not only in Arab culture but to Persian culture as well.

The other probable reason, is that interfering to the affairs of others irregardless of the objective and intention is not condoned in Islamic culture most especially if it involves contending sovereign states.

It would be then an uphill endeavor for the US as what had happened in Iraq, to get sympathy and support from these people. It could be better off for the US to adopt a new approach in their middle east policy.

Instead of alienating the people mutual respect on its respective culture should strictly be observed which is the key to understanding to both parties without jeopardizing friendship. What might be in, in the west might be taboo in the east or vise versa.

Comments

comments