To make that even clearer, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff General Richard Myers said on July 2 that a force of 145,000 US troops may be needed in Iraq for as many as five years.

“We can do that and we’ve got plans to do that for as long as it takes, because this will be event-driven, not time-line driven,” Myers told PBS television.

He added, “It will take six months, a year, a year-and-a-half, two years, three years, probably four or five years before we get this force set to have the kind of skills where we need them to do the kind of things we need to do in this security environment,” he said.

Coinciding with four-star Myers’ statements, Shiite leader Moqtada Al-Sadr urged the Iraqi people to step up resistance, as the US-led occupation has not ended yet.

“What has changed is the name only. I ask the Iraqis to keep rejecting the occupation and call for independence,” Al-Sadr told Iraqi worshippers through his top aide Khafaji on July 2.

The situation could not be any clearer: The presence of US-led troops triggers attacks, prompting the government to ask the foreign troops to stay longer. Till when?

Alternative?

Many analysts and observers call for the immediate withdrawal of coalition troops as the only way out of the current chaotic situation.

Actually, I was furious when I heard the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, some three months ago, warn against the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Mubarak actually came under a bitter attack from many Arab—and even foreign—writers after making that statement.

However, a deeper look into the situation may help us draw a more complete picture of what would happen if the Americans escaped the Iraqi quagmire they entered out of their own free will over a year ago.

Iraq is currently an open territory for all parties, countries and groups to settle scores and try to put an end to Washington’s arrogance of power. No one can tell, for sure, who stands behind any particular attack.

There is an Iraqi resistance, as a matter of fact. Question is, who are members of such resistance and who are not? Which attacks does the Iraqi resistance carry out, and which ones do others carry out for their own reasons?

There are attacks that could hardly be believed to be planned and executed by Iraqis resisting the occupation of their homeland by foreign troops. Attacks that kill Iraqi civilians—Shiites and Sunnis alike. These are definitely terrorist attacks that must be stopped. But who is to stop them, and how?

Withdrawing all foreign troops from Iraq right now, in the absence of a real Iraqi national army or police force, means more blood, chaos and instability in light of which no one can predict the future of Iraq—if any at all.

Yet, the presence of such troops on Iraqi streets represents the main cause behind the rivers of blood that seem to be flooding endlessly. What a predicament!

Think Positive, Mr. Bush

Well—it’s about time US President George W. Bush proved to the world that mistakes could be corrected and wrong decisions could still be reversed.

The Americans invaded and occupied Iraq—in defiance of the will of many countries and unprecedented anti-war protests—to destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and oust Saddam Hussein’s regime in order to “liberate” the Iraqis from oppression and tyranny.

No weapons of mass destruction have ever been found. Fine; no problem. We all make mistakes, Mr. Bush. We are only human.

Saddam has been ousted, captured and humiliated, and he is currently being tried for his crimes. He sure deserves whatever fate awaits him.

What could now be done to restore security to Iraqis? I guess the Bush administration should focus on finding an answer for this question.

A number of points must be considered to reach the right answer. Firstly, there is a strong Iraqi resistance to the presence of US-led troops, and that resistance will never be abated as long as the cause is still there.

Secondly, there are others who launch attacks in Iraq against US forces to weaken them and keep them busy as long as it takes, for a variety of reasons. We must bear in mind here that the Bush administration has brilliantly managed to make an endless line of enemies who would never miss a chance to settle scores with no regard for the victims that can simply be considered “collateral damage.”

Thirdly, the Iraqi people—at least the majority of them—won’t honestly cooperate with the Allawi government as long as it seems to be nothing but a “puppet government.” Allawi himself declared he was “proud” to be a CIA agent, for God’s sake. Something must be done to show the Iraqis and the whole world that the transfer of power means what it means.

Transfer of power to the Iraqi government means that the latter really runs Iraq—right?

Keep a Low Profile

It is clear that demanding an immediate withdrawal of foreign troops might not be an option now. What about keeping a low profile as a first step in the right direction?

The United States spent months, or even years, preparing to invade and occupy Iraq. It is only logic to expect going out of Iraq to take some time—question is how long. Five years as General Myers put it? Maybe. But as he himself described the situation as “event-driven, not time-line driven,” events on the ground must be paved in a way to help put a quick end to occupation.

A number of steps need to be considered as soon as possible if anyone—whether in the Bush administration or Allawi’s government—really cares about the lives lost daily in Iraq.

Foreign troops must not appear on Iraq’s streets. This is just a step that might help defuse the situation a little. Such foreign troops could be—and again, as a first step—stationed outside major Iraqi cities. Street patrols must stop immediately, leaving the policing job for the Iraqi police force, or what is left from that force.

Iraqis must feel they are in charge of preserving the unity and security of their own country. This way, the Americans will not have to undergo the bitter experience they went through when an Iraqi army unit refused to take part in fighting Fallujah’s resistance fighters alongside US occupation troops.

Once US street patrols disappear, it is only logic for bloodshed and bombs to decrease—at least.

The training of the Iraqi army and police could thus be carried out swiftly inside US bases (outside major cities) if necessary. This way, once patrolling the streets, Iraqi police, or army units, won’t find themselves forced to fight their own people shoulder to shoulder with foreign occupiers.

One more point: The US occupiers must stop imposing figures on the Iraqi people—at least to avoid being forced to provide heavy security for them wherever they go. I mean, can Iraq’s Prime Minister really rely on Iraqi bodyguards? Not just now. Even long after the occupation is gone—I doubt it.

The American administration insists on propagating America’s success in Germany and Japan after the end of World War II, adding that Iraq will witness the same outcome on the long run.

There is no comparison whatsoever between the two cases: “Look, Germany and Japan have fought the whole world, we did not,” an old Iraqi man is quoted as telling Aljazeera.

Up till now, the Americans have forces in Germany and Japan, but are they looked upon as invaders or occupiers? Do they impose on the Germans or Japanese who to vote or not to vote for? They are just troops stationed in certain bases under certain agreements signed between two equal parties, not by a “puppet regime” installed by the occupiers.

The only way for stability or security to prevail in Iraq is for occupation troops, multinational forces, coalition of the willing or the billing—whatever their name is—to leave as soon as practically possible.

For now, keeping a low profile and leaving Iraqis alone might not be a bad idea—don’t you think, Mr. Bush?

Khaled Mamdouh  is an editor on IslamOnline.net’s News Desk. He is also a radio announcer, and journalist and translator for several Arabic magazines. You can reach him at khaledm69@hotmail.com