The disturbance in Iraq continues. Just when some American analysts believed the situation had improved, four suicide bombings took place in mid August at two villages of Yazidi sect near Mosul in northern Iraq, killing at least 500 and injuring 375. They turned out the most destructive series attacks since the Iraqi war broke out, and happened amidst the "Operation Phantom Strike" against anti-US militants throughout Iraq. Intensified military operations only brought intensified attacks. Therefore it is hardly acceptable to say the security situation has turned better.
Back at home, Republicans and Democrats still remain sharply divided on Iraqi strategies. The Democrat-dominated House of Representatives adopted many withdrawal proposals or bills, but all were killed by the Senate or the President himself.
To find new approaches to Iraq, the Armed Service Committee under the House held recently a hearing named A Third Way: Alternatives for Iraq's Future, at which non-governmental think tanks proposed a "third way" between "precipitous withdrawal" and "stay the course" indefinitely.
The proposal features part withdrawal, leaving 10,000 troops in the northern Kurds area. Once a civil war breaks out the US army can intervene immediately and prevent the war flames from spreading; meanwhile, as a supportive measure to military means, before the partial withdrawal the Iraqi territory would be "softly divided" into three sections according to ethnic groups and sects: Sunni, Shiite and Kurd. The central goal is to solve the problem of Iraq and at the same time meet demands of both Republicans and Democrats.
The "third way" looks smart in its compromise. But a neglected point is: are Iraqis willing to put their fate in the hand of others? Here the proposed 10,000 troops in Kurds area is meant to keep a possible civil war within Iraq. After the fruitless search for weapons of mass destruction, ending "tyranny" in the country has become the most "convincing" justification for the war. However, if the consequences of toppled "tyranny" are ceaseless civil wars or long-term station of US troops, will it be acceptable to the Iraqis? Will it trigger off even more violence?
Besides, the intrusion of external forces and a "soft division" of Iraq by ethnic groups and sects can only generate two results: one is the complete disintegration of Iraq as a sovereign state; the other is the country, though kept together, is torn in prolonged conflicts among various forces and political crisis, which is common in history. The so-called "soft division" can only intensify religious and ethnic splits. Such a situation does no good to Iraqi stability in short term and to regional peace and development in long term.
Talking about the possible split facing Iraq, an American analyst once said Iraq as a united country has ceased to be of substantial significance to the US. Does that mean an Iraq in complete confusion has real meaning to the US?
As a matter of fact, leaders of various Iraqi political sects have met on August 18 to discuss the government's political crisis and the promotion of national reconciliation. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki also proposed a meeting of various political leaders. Local media said the sects had reached preliminary agreement on important issues such as power sharing and armed militants. Under such circumstances, neglecting Iraq's own strength and seeking for a "third way" may probably turn out a dead end.
By People's Daily Online
|
Comment
Tell A Friend
Print Format
Save Article