Position Paper on the Future of Iraq (New Version)

Through the efforts of numerous members of the Future of Iraq Discussion Group and the extensive international network of progressive Iraqis with their valuable suggestions and ideas, we have a new improved version of the 'Position Paper' on Iraq (copy attached).   We hope that after this round of inputs and improvements we will be able to also establish this as a petition for people to sign. 

Yesterday, we had our first round of briefing in the Congress with staffers from two important sub-committees. We provided them with the 'Position Paper' and discussed ways to realize the objective of this position. We are more encouraged that there is a growing body of opinion in Congress that supports: 

• The total withdrawal of  all forces of occupation;
• An end of the support of the US Government to sectarianism and current policies that are bringing disaster to Iraq, its economy, its minorities, and its well-being;  
• Open dialogue with the more than the "Green Zone" parties to include dialogue with the Iraqi Resistance, except the AlQa'da; 
• The US involvements in humanitarian and developmental roles lead by Iraqis.
  

Please for the sake of the well-being of the Iraqi people continue this discourse, and we will continue to refine the 'Position Paper' to reflect more accurately the position of the anti-occupation and anti-sectarianism forces, for:

• One unified democratic Iraq whose foundational laws are based on the principle of "Citizenship" and not membership in a {sects, tribes, ethnicity group, Sahwa groups, militia, and/or private army … etc.}
• The unconditional and the complete removal of all foreign troops and bases; and the ending of all foreign meddling. 
• We are calling on the US and other powers to have open dialogue with Iraq National Resistance, excluding Al-Qaida, and to facilitate a new election process that is not sectarian, all-inclusive with safety and security to all to speak their minds and seek the mandate of the Iraqi people. The dialogue should focus on reformation of the election process that will lead to national elections whose immediate purposes is the recasting of the Iraqi Constitution to reflect the Iraqi national consensus. In addition, we stress that whomever wins from that open democratic and participatory process will have to be respected and NO "Hamas Treatment".  
•  A strong unified central government bounded by democratic checks and balances and an open society that protects and defends the fundamental human, civil, and political rights of all its citizens, and all its  minorities and ethnic formations without prejudice.
• Governmental Institutions, including army and security forces, that is based on Professional qualified Iraqi citizens, for the service of the people of Iraq, with no sectarianism, cronyism, political parties, or any of the numerous forms of corrupt practices that prevail today.
• We are calling for an Independent Truth, Accountability, Justice (TAJ) Commission of independent jurists to review the crimes of individuals associated with the Saddam Regime, the Occupation Regime, including the current regime.  These crimes should include personal, ethnic, and group crimes as well as charges of corruption.  The mandate should include not only Iraqis but also personnel for the occupation forces (US, UK, etc.) and all other people who committed crimes against Iraqis.  And that also should end all Debaathification Program.
• The Iraqi people through a single administrative authority own Iraq's natural resources. All revenues will be distributed in affair manner to assist in health, education, welfare, social development, and the development arts and culture across Iraq.
• We are calling for the establishment of the Iraq Reconstruction and Development International Bank to support a serious transparent program of accelerated reconstruction.  The US, UK, and other who participated in the occupation should make the major contributions to the capital of the Bank and a portion of the annual revenues from Iraqi oil.

Thank you for your involvement and support,

Future of Iraq Discussion Group

Iraq Future: More Discussions

 

Dear Haifa and Mundher,

I thank you, both, for your thoughtful response. I appreciate the feedback I have been receiving from many Iraqis and I assure you that the Future of Iraq Discussion Group will discuss these important responses and will refine the statement to reflect the consensus of the group.

Preface

I have to confess that the language of the statement is cautious and possibly represents a compromise between the pressing need to influence the debate in the US towards a more progressive position that supports Iraqi interests and the language necessary to support to the more principled positions of progressive Iraqis.

Quotation on: US Culpability and the Iraqi Resistance

For the purpose of clarity, and responding to your points, I have included your text in red characters with quotations.

"I write to you personally about basic issues in the statement.  The details, and even the steps suggested may be good, but the frame is not.

"It seems to us, Haifa and I, that in avoiding fundamental issues, probably in the desire to engage the mainstream politics is more harmful than not.  Fundamentals such as a) the culpability of the US occupation in destroying the state, and fragmenting society and b) the absolute need to engage the legitimate Iraqi armed resistance as the main force for correction. They claim to consider engaging the Taliban, why not the Iraqi resistance?"

US Culpability

I fully agree that the US occupation of Iraq is fully culpable "in destroying the state, and fragmenting society". I add that the US occupation and its allies promoted, supported, and leveraged sectarianism in Iraq as in instrument of policy to subdue Iraq and to split the resistance of its people. The Iraqi people, in my view, have absolute legitimate right to resist, by all necessary means, the occupation, including armed resistance, political means, cultural means, civic disobedience, passive resistance, and peaceful means of protest.

In my mind, there is no obstacle what so ever for the US to engage the Iraqi resistance in direct and full negotiations. Item five of the proposals to the US, in the statement, states, "Open dialogue with all Iraqi political forces, on non-sectarian basis, with the intention of securing their participation and support for a safe and open process of election."

I suppose we could strengthen this by making more explicit to include the armed resistance.

Iraqi Armed Resistance

There is an issue here that, I hope you and other Iraqi colleagues could help me resolve. Which party on the resistance side politically represents the collective anti-occupation forces? We spent a lot of time discussing this dimension and failing to have specific information from a specific side or few sides, it will weaken the statement to demand, generically, all that the US negotiate with the "Iraqi Resistance". I agree that current formulation is also weak but leaves the door open for more specificity.

Hence, one thing is necessary and urgent that we work together to identify a political, or few political, parties that have the following characteristics:

A) They represent a movement against the occupation. B) They have a political and/or military presence in Iraq. C) They have an identifiable political arm that can engage in meaningful negotiations. D) They are not Al-Qaida.

These characteristics are necessary conditions to present to the World, including the US, a party that we can identify as representing the alternative future of Iraq. That places an urgency for a front of national unity composed of armed and political resistance groups to emerge to represent itself as a legitimate party, if not, the legitimate party, for the people of Iraq.

I believe that the US plan to occupy, pacify, and transform Iraq to a colony failed, specifically because of the valiant resistance and the sacrifices of the Iraqi people. The challenge now is to cultivate that success and crystallize a formal political representation in the name of the Iraqi people. It is impossible to reap the benefits of this victory or to leverage it for a better future of Iraq without the maturation of a national front. Here lies the difference with the Taliban.

The question I have, which I have asked many times from many Iraqis, who are the party or parties that politically and formally is willing to speak from the perspective of the resistance on behalf of the people of Iraq? We need to respond to this question, with urgency, to assure the Iraqi people and to establish the political necessity for regional and world powers to deal with this reality.

Demands from the US

The US is fully culpable for the destruction of Iraq and hence the US has responsibilities to support the effort of the Iraq people to rebuild their country. It may be important to state that the US is culpable. Instead, the team felt we should focus what we are asking the US to do now because it is culpable. We believe that the following demands are an expression of holding the US culpable:

1. Open unconditional discussions with all Iraqi forces, in this context, including the Iraqi resistance;
   
2. Accelerate the withdrawal of all US forces and leave no bases in Iraq; and,
   
3. Continue to assume responsibility to support the rebuilding of Iraq and relieving it of its debt.
   
4. Respect the will of Iraqi people once an acceptable process with the participation of the Iraqi resistance is reached.
   
5. Support the revisions of the Constitution based on D above
   
6. Support, facilitate, and recognize the authority of an independent, international Truth, Accountability, and Justice Commission to adjudicate all those suspected of all crimes, against humanity, corruption, merchants of children, etc. of both Iraqis and US personnel
   

 

Again, kindly suggest other demands that we may have overlooked.

The Obama Policy

"The statement seems not to challenge the deliberately vague policies, continuation of Bush's era, which aim for a neo-colonial set up as a solution for the failed American project. These are not a matter of words or tactics but of basics."  

The Obama, to date, is not only "deliberately vague policies, continuation of Bush's era, which aim for a neo-colonial set up as a solution for the failed American project" but in addition it is a compromise among forces A & B that I described in my response to Sami Ramadani (please see addendum to the message for elaborations on Forces A, B, and C).

I strongly believe that the mandate of the American people as represented by the Forces C agrees that "Iraq was a strategic blunder and an unjustified war. We [the US] should withdraw ASAP and let the Iraqis rule their lives.  I believe that this broad majority, however, is not as well organized around this issue as indeed either Forces A and Forces B.  We need to find a mechanism to mobilize them in the US."

The struggle to define the final US policy towards Iraq has just started. The factors that swing it away from a compromise position that ultimately is neo-colonial position are the following:

1. Strong mobilization, urgently, of the left and progressive forces particularly those that are already in Congress to pressure towards the demands I listed above. The US left has been always slow to move and fragmented, therefore, the mobilization is critical if we are to leverage this historic moment.
   
2. A strong united Iraqi national front that provides a political voice to the Iraqi resistance groups. This is essential to provide mobilization of forces in Iraq and to claim a legitimate place as a speaker for the future of Iraq. I must point out here that this is an Iraqi task not a US task.
   
3. Regional mobilization of states that can stand-up and speak on half and in support of the non-sectarian solution to Iraq political future and that can express political support to united Iraqi Front.
   

 

Without these three factors crystallizing very fast, today Obama's compromise with the Forces A and B will not only become permanent, but also will shift gradually towards Forces A. There are two critical windows; the first is today until about end of June. The second window is from now until the end of August 2010. If we succeed in mobilizing the three factors above such has to have showing in the first window, we open many doors for defeating the colonial program.

 

Without exaggerating the importance of the statement, it is a ferment to start that mobilization.

Iraq Salvation and Tactics

"In matters of tactics, Iraq's salvation would benefit from a spectrum of groups and moves, from the various forms of open resistance, to various forms of engaging the colonial project itself.  But some of these may be more useful to the colonialists than to the 'natives'. An Iraqi-American group, or a Palestinian – American group is only worthwhile I it upholds the right to resistance, and call foremost or the US to engage the resistance.  Reforming the current political process is only worthwhile if it charts its own demise through engaging the resistance and addressing the huge injustices."

There is no question that the team, and I believe very strongly in the right of the Iraqi people for resistance and fee self-determination. You are right in saying that "Reforming the current political process is only worthwhile if it charts its own demise through engaging the resistance and addressing the huge injustices." The reformation of political process is focused on the realizing the following dimensions:

1. A political dialogue with all Iraqi forces, particularly the Iraqi resistance, and one hopes most definitely with a united Iraqi National Front
   
2. A process that rejects sectarianism in favour of equality of citizenship in front the law and in opportunities, particularly equality of men and women, and equal access by all Iraqis to all government and security institutions based on credentials and love of service to Iraq and the Iraqi people
   
3. A process that leads to reformation of the Constitution
   
4. A process that leads to the end of the rule of the militias, all militias in what dress, name, or identification that they use
   
5. A process that will lead to the formulation of a strong unified Iraqi government based on professionalism, service, and non-sectarianism
   

"Irresponsible Withdrawal"

  "A particularly jarring aspect is the stand towards 'irresponsible withdrawal', at the start of the Assessment section, which seems contrary to the accepted position of all the anti-occupation forces."

If the US is culpable, as we have argued above, then one thing we have to demand is that it acknowledges its culpability by meeting the demands we stated above, otherwise the demand to just withdraw and acknowledge you have made a mistake and leave the Iraqis alone is, in fact, relieving the US from any responsibility.

Hence, a "responsible withdrawal" means that not only that the US withdraws but it will also must meet the political demands and the functional demands of helping Iraq rebuild itself.

 Thank you for your response,

With my best regards and in friendship,

Sami AlBanna

 

 

Appendix from my Message to Sami Ramadani, March 11, 2008

Extract from a message I sent to Sami Ramadani on March 11, 2009

Let me comment on: "My immediate and biggest initial concern, however, is centered on the question of withdrawal of the occupation forces and the implicit suggestion in the document that a short term continuation of the US-led occupation is beneficial to Iraq."

I am concerned that the document is projecting that image, because non of this that had worked with me believe that is true.  Let me explain the context:

1. None my Iraqi colleagues in the team believe that the occupation was legitimate, justified, good for Iraq, or needed to security.  I am sorry that the text seems to be projecting a different sense.   The team and I will review more closely to make sure that this point is not missed. I am also concerned that another point seems to have been missed which is we all believe that the US carries a moral and legal responsibility for the destruction of Iraq and has a responsibility to support the rebuilding of Iraq.

2. President Obama, using the SOFA, have declared a withdrawal of "US combat troops" by August 2010.  He suggested the US will keep 35K-50K troops from August 2010 through December 2011 and I should add, though this was not in his statement, that the US will have to keep roughly 75K-100K of the mercenary and sub-contractors supporting the US presence.

3. President Obama also declared that we will respect the SOFA terms and withdraw all US forces by December 2011.

4. The fact is both declarations by the President are a compromise between two of the three currents prevailing on the debate in Washington.  Let me sketch the analysis that the team believes is the situation.  The three Forces aligned around the question of withdrawal are:

Forces A) The neo-con and their close allies forces that remain entrenched and formidable in the institutions of the US government and the forest of think tanks and institutes--- i.e. the intellectual sourcing pipeline of the US government---  that surround it in the US, in spite of the election defeat last November.

The position of Forces A remains fixated around using US military power not only to subdue Iraq, but if possible to extend that to subdue Iran and Syria and the Palestinian etc. In other words, they are against the withdrawal from Iraq, and they see Iraq as a prize that the US should retain and that the US should continue to have major bases "forever" in Iraq.  This group further dreams that victory has been achieved and their real program of changing the Middle East is now more possible than 2003.

Forces B) The professional institutional government, particularly the national security apparatus that includes the Armed Forces, Intelligence Agencies, the State Department, and many of the intellectuals feed surrounding the permanent government.

This trend is against the total withdrawal, but accepts to a significant draw down, and believe that the SFA provides a mechanism that can be activated  to draft a new SOFA after the Nov 2010 mid-term elections.  This logic states that the Democrats can claim that they have been successful implemented the promise of President Obama to withdraw in 16 months, in his speech, he is doing it in 18 months, which a couple of months before that mid-term elections. In short, in spite of President Obama to completely withdraw from Iraq by December 2011, the issue is open.

Forces A and B are aligned now on this issue and they both see there will be an opportunity to revise the total withdrawal decision after the mid-term Nov 2010 elections. They particularly feel that there are a number of Iraqi parties that are demanding that the US stays like the Kurdish parties, the Al-Hakim group, and, I suspect even Al-Hashimi Sunni group.  I also suspect that Al-Maliki, ultimately, will not oppose the permanent stay of US forces, but now he is milking the strong Iraqi national sentiments for the withdrawal of all foreign forces.


Forces C) I think this a strong majority in the US electorate with very strong representation in Congress after the Nov 2008 elections, particularly in the House, where there is a near majority in favor of total immediate withdrawal.  I also think that President Obama started his electoral campaign being strongly in this camp.  Now he has to deal with mostly Forces A and B on a daily basis, and given the declining economic conditions whereby he has to relay mostly on the permanent government establishment to carry forward his plans, he had to compromise and the compromise is really a delay until after August 2010.

The position here is simple. Iraq was a strategic blunder and an unjustified war. We should withdraw ASAP and let the Iraqis rule their lives.  I believe that this broad majority, however, is not as well organized around this issue as indeed either Forces A and Forces B.  We need to find a mechanism to mobilize them in the US.

5. Our attempt is to encourage Forces C to keep the pressure on the administration, otherwise we will meet a condition by Sept 2010 whereby the forces will be aligned to extend the withdrawal.  Our attempt also is to call on the Iraqi forces to explore ways of non-sectarian conciliation in the interest of evolving toward some peaceful resolution. The chances are today without such a reconciliation that we will face an escalating state of violence in 2010, particularly after Nov 2010, which will provide justifications for Forces A and B to extend the occupation.

Position Paper on the Future of Iraq

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sami AlBanna <sami.albanna@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Subject: {Iraq Future:95} Re: Position Paper on the Future of Iraq
To: sami.ramadani@londonmet.ac.uk
Cc: EPJF <EPJF@googlegroups.com>, iraqfuture <iraqfuture@googlegroups.com>


Dear Sami,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful remarks which will definitely help our small group here in DC to improve the content of the statement. I concede that in our rush to get this statement out early to try to influence the debate in Washington, we might have missed or miss-represented some ideas. That is why our small group, here is happy to learn from thoughtful feedback, such as the one you provided, and improve the text going forward to ensure that a more balanced and more progressive solution to Iraq's future.

Let me comment on: "My immediate and biggest initial concern, however, is centered on the question of withdrawal of the occupation forces and the implicit suggestion in the document that a short term continuation of the US-led occupation is beneficial to Iraq."

I am concerned that the document is projecting that image, because non of this that had worked with me believe that is true.  Let me explain the context:

1. None my Iraqi colleagues in the team believe that the occupation was legitimate, justified, good for Iraq, or needed to security.  I am sorry that the text seems to be projecting a different sense.   The team and I will review more closely to make sure that this point is not missed. I am also concerned that another point seems to have been missed which is we all believe that the US carries a moral and legal responsibility for the destruction of Iraq and has a responsibility to support the rebuilding of Iraq.

2. President Obama, using the SOFA, have declared a withdrawal of "US combat troops" by August 2010.  He suggested the US will keep 35K-50K troops from August 2010 through December 2011 and I should add, though this was not in his statement, that the US will have to keep roughly 75K-100K of the mercenary and sub-contractors supporting the US presence.

3. President Obama also declared that we will respect the SOFA terms and withdraw all US forces by December 2011.

4. The fact is both declarations by the President are a compromise between two of the three currents prevailing on the debate in Washington.  Let me sketch the analysis that the team believes is the situation.  The three Forces aligned around the question of withdrawal are:

Forces A) The neo-con and their close allies forces that remain entrenched and formidable in the institutions of the US government and the forest of think tanks and institutes--- i.e. the intellectual sourcing pipeline of the US government---  that surround it in the US, in spite of the election defeat last November.

The position of forces A remain fixated around using US military power not only to subdue Iraq, but if possible to extend that to subdue Iran and Syria and the Palestinian etc.,  In other words, they are against the withdrawal from Iraq, and they see Iraq as a prize that should be retained and the US should continue to have major bases "forever" in Iraq.  This group further dreams that victory has been achieved and their real program of changing the Middle East is now more possible than 2003.

Forces B) The professional institutional government, particularly the national security apparatus which includes the Armed Forces, Intelligence Agencies, the State Department, and many of the  intellectuals feed surrounding the permanent government.

This trend is against the total withdrawal, but accepts to a significant draw down, and believe that the SFA provides a mechanism that can be activated  to draft a new SOFA after the Nov 2010 mid-term elections.  This logic states that the Democrats can claim that they have been successful implemented the promise of President Obama to withdraw in 16 months, in his speech, he is doing it in 18 months, which a couple of months before that mid-term elections. In short, in spite of President Obama to completely withdraw from Iraq by December 2011, the issue is open.

Forces A and Forces B are aligned now on this issue and they both see there will be an opportunity to revise the total withdrawal decision after the Nov 2010 elections, particularly they feel that there are a number of Iraqi parties that are demanding for the US to stay like the Kurdish parties, the Al-Hakim group, and, suspect even Al-Hashimi Sunni group.  I also suspect that Al-Maliki, ultimately, will not oppose the permanent stay of US forces, but now he is milking the strong Iraqi national sentiments for the withdrawal of all foreign forces.


Forces C)  I think this a strong majority in the US electorate with very strong representation in Congress after the Nov 2008 elections, particularly in the house where there is a near majority in favor of total immediate withdrawal.  I also think that President Obama started his electoral campaign being strongly in this camp.  Now he has to deal with mostly Forces A and B on a daily basis, and given the declining economic conditions whereby he has to relay mostly on the permanent government establishment to carry forward his plans, he had to compromise and the compromise is really a delay until after August 2010.

The position here is simple. Iraq was a strategic blunder and an unjustified war. We should withdraw ASAP and let the Iraqis rule their lives.  I believe that this broad majority, however, is not as well organized around this issue as indeed either Forces A and Forces B.  We need to find a mechanism to mobilize them in the US.

5. Our attempt is to encourage Forces C to keep the pressure on the administration, otherwise we will meet a condition by Sept 2010 whereby the forces will be aligned to extend the withdrawal.  Our attempt also is to call on the Iraqi forces to explore ways of non-sectarian conciliation in the interest of evolving toward some peaceful resolution. The chances are today without such a reconciliation that we will face an escalating state of violence in 2010, particularly after Nov 2010, which will provide justifications for Forces A and B to extend the occupation.


Sami:  I need to study your message more deeply because it has many valuable inputs to explore with my colleagues the ways to strengthen this document.

In friendship with deep appreciation,
Sami AlBanna

2009/3/11 Sami Ramadani <sami.ramadani@londonmet.ac.uk>

Dear Sami,

Many thanks for this and the effort you have been putting into the whole process of achieving consensus on Iraq and highlighting the plight of its long-suffering people.

The document deserves careful attention and consideration, which I will do during the coming days. Meanwhile, even a cursory reading reveals a mature approach to many of Iraq's seemingly insurmountable problems. Many of the proposals and recommendations are very sensible and realistic. My immediate and biggest initial concern, however, is centred on the question of withdrawal of the occupation forces and the implicit suggestion in the document that a short term continuation of the US-led occupation is beneficial to Iraq.

Thinking aloud: my starting point on post-occupation Iraq is anchored on the premise that non of Iraq's major problems and tragedies could be resolved or ameliorated without the immediate ending of the occupation and all its works. This does not mean that Iraq's problems will be resolved once the occupation ends, but it does mean that the Iraqi people could begin to try to resolve the myriad of complex problems facing them without the visible and invisible hands of the occupation.

The military occupation has immeasurably strengthened US influence and varied forms of presence at all levels in Iraqi society. The biggest embassy in the world, for example, needs to be shut down. If the US is willing to respect the independence and sovereignty of Iraq, then a modest embassy similar to many others is more than sufficient. War reparations are also due. The TAJ should also look into the US-led war crimes and the war of aggression itself. The proposed oil law should be scrapped...

The occupation and US-led presence in Iraq is the poison that has replaced and added to the Saddamist poison inflicting in Iraq's social, political and economic life and fabric. The poison needs to be removed first.

Reading the above I see that the language is emotive. But whatever the form of words, the meaning is all important in my view.

Thanks again for shepherding this effort and debate.

Best,
Sami

**************************************************
Sami Ramadani,  
Department of Applied Social Sciences,
London Metropolitan University, City Campus, 
Old Castle Street,  London, E1 7NT

Tel: 020 7320 1280
Fax: 020 7320 1034
Email: Sami.Ramadani@londonmet.ac.uk
**************************************************

Sami AlBanna wrote:

Please find attached a statement on the Future of Iraq developed by a group of Iraqis and Iraqi-Americans living in the Washington, DC area.

The statement is open for evolution based on feedback and discussions. Your feedback will be appreciated.
Sami AlBanna

The Future of Iraq

An Iraqi Perspective on the Future of Iraq

March 2009

Introduction

We, the undersigned, are a group of Iraqi and Iraqi-American professionals and intellectuals, observe with pleasure the momentum towards peace, justice, stability, and democracy in our beloved Iraq, the cradle of human civilization.

We support the unconditional withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq, and we support the direction of President Barak Obama to remove all US troops from Iraq by Dec. 2011.

We strongly believe that Iraq must have full sovereignty as a unified democratic anti-sectarian state with equal rights and justice to all its citizens, irrespective of creed, ethnic origin, belief, or tribal affiliation and without the presence of all and any foreign military forces.

Concerns Based on Facts on the Ground

Progress has been made on a number of fronts, including security and local provincial elections. However, the political process in Iraq is still blocked by disagreements and opposite views, forming key obstacles in the way to achieving any progress leading to a safer and democratic Iraq. Therefore, we are concerned that the assessments of the progress made by the media, the Iraqi government and the US administration officials have been overstated and that the facts on the ground in Iraq remain alarming in their scope of damage. Here are few of these facts:

• The forces of divisiveness, sectarianism, and fragmentation remain strong and active throughout Iraq, preparing for civil war, or wars, when their increasing demands are not met.
  
  • The structure of most of the institutions of the Iraqi government, including security forces, remains largely sectarian exercising repressive power against groups of different political or sectarian persuasion;
    
  • The forces of division and fragmentation retain active and visible militias through Iraqi regions, weakening the roles of the Iraqi government and civic society;
    
  • This process is forcing and encouraging other groups to explore the formation of their own private militias, for self-protection, and, hence, accelerating the trend towards more divisiveness and war.
    
• The process of political reconciliation on non-sectarian basis is stalled. It is a fact that several key disputed issues, like the oil revenues, the city of Kirkuk, the militias and others remain unresolved, although negotiations have been ongoing since 2003 to resolve them. It is also a fact that the Iraqi constitution remains in effect, with no hope of any process to reform it, although there were promises of reform and amendment before it was passed through a referendum in October 2005.
  
• The United Nations classified Iraq, for the past three years, as one of the most corrupt states in the World. Efforts and billions of US Dollars have been spent to reconstruct the infrastructure, schools and health systems, since 2003. The levels of these services remain lower than pre-2003 levels and most billions have not been accounted for.
  
• Iraqi's economic activities are near a complete standstill. More than 65% of the labor force is unemployed. Security forces and militias employ most of the rest of the 35%.
  
• We note with horror that since the illegal invasion of Iraq six years ago, today we have the following demographic and social facts:
  
  • Estimates put the number of civilian Iraqis perished by violence anywhere between 100,000 and 1.5 million.
    
  • More than two million Iraqis are now refugees in neighboring countries and other parts of the world.
    
  • More than two million Iraqis are now displaced inside Iraq and living in horrible conditions;
    
  • Iraqi's cherished minorities, with their numerous rich cultural diversity and contributions to Iraq wellbeing are now nearly extinct;
    
  • The status of Iraqi woman, in law and in public practices, has regressed to a level far below the status it achieved in the past fifty years;
    
  • Iraq has more than 2 million widows and more than 5 million orphans, according to UNCEF;
    
  • The process of assassination and intimidation of the intellectual wealth of Iraq continues unabated. Hundreds of Iraq's outstanding intellectuals, professionals, academics, and scientists have been assassinated and tens of thousands have been forces to flee Iraq and become refuges;
    

These facts are but a short list of the highlights of the extensive destruction caused, directly or indirectly, by six years of occupation, sectarian policies, and rampant corruption.

Assessment Based on the Concerns

These concerns, and other more disturbing facts, clearly point that an irresponsible withdrawal of foreign forces will push Iraq toward more dire conditions of conflict that will very likely engulf not only Iraq but also the whole Middle East in local warfare, imbalances, and destruction endangering, in the process, far more than just Iraq security.

On the other hand, and more importantly, any reversal that will consider keeping US and foreign forces beyond December 2011 will definitely act as a trigger to a broader and more entrenched resistance to this extended foreign occupation. This resurgence will not only engulf Iraq with a broader and more viscous war, but will also accelerate instability and war in the whole Middle East region.

Our assessment is that if the US continues with the current sense of "victory is at-hand," the likely outcome will produce two undesirable conditions: either an irresponsible withdrawal leaving chaos and civil war, or an extension of the occupation beyond December 2011.

The future of World's peace, security, and prosperity depends on the realization, as soon as possible, of a sustainable just Middle East peace. Many factors and players enter the equation of achieving Middle Eastern peace; among them is the necessary condition that a credible and legitimate government in Baghdad is a party to such peace.

The coming nine months are critical to producing a more desirable outcome.

The Desired Future of Iraq

We call on the US, the neighbors of Iraq, the Arab countries, the other countries of the Middle East, and the numerous interested international parties to respect and support the Iraqi people in realizing their desired vision:

1. A unified non-sectarian democratic Iraq with a strong national government bounded by the rule of law and democratic checks and balances.
   
2. A reformed Constitution that will be reformed by the will of the Iraqi people-- all Iraqi people-- to represent a more balanced non-sectarian legal framework, that emphases the principles of equal citizenship, and the protection of women, disadvantaged, and minorities.
   
3. Iraqi citizens, irrespective of creed, ethnicity, or belief are equal in their citizenship and have equal rights before fair, just and enforceable laws. Protection of the laws must, unequivocally extend to freedom of speech, assembly, petition of their government, and protection of all minorities, political, ethnic, gender, or belief-based.
   
4. The right of all ethnic groups in Iraq to develop in peace, and to celebrate their ethnicity's history, languages, and culture.
   
5. The ownership of energy resources, including oil and gas, will remain centralized and whose returns will serve the interests of all Iraqi people to build common prosperity.
   

 

Recommendations

It is in the United States' interest to see a potential partner for peace emerging in Baghdad. Supporting non-sectarian political reforms in Iraq will contribute to shorten the United States' armed forces presence in Iraq. Billions of dollars, now directed to sustaining the mission in Iraq, will be redirected towards the United States' domestic needs.

To the United States

We recommend that the US enacts policies and takes the following steps:

1. Commit to the withdrawal of all forces and all bases, as President Obama stated in his Feb 27, 2009 speech. Consider accelerating the complete withdrawal to December 2010 as a lever to expedite non-sectarian political conciliation.
   
2. Continue, unequivocally, to support institutional building based on non-sectarian basis.
   
3. Commit to the respect of the will of the Iraqi people to choose their leaders and their laws, irrespective of the outcome. No "Hamas treatment".
   
4. Commit to support, financially and politically, the reconstruction of Iraq over a long period.
   
5. Open dialogue with all Iraqi political forces, on non-sectarian basis, with the intention of securing their participation and support for a safe and open process of election
   
6. Use the influence of the US to engage regional and international powers to support the will of the Iraqi people and refrain from intervention in the internal affairs of Iraq. Further, facilitate the elimination of the burden of debt on the new emergent Iraq.
   
7. Support the formation and the participation in a Truth, Accountability, and Justice (TAJ) Commission of international personalities of trust and creditability, with Iraqi participation. The Commission should be formed independent of the Iraqi Government or any of the political parties and should have a wide jurisdiction of subpoena powers. The TAJ Commission will investigate openly and judicially:
   

• All crimes committed against Iraqis and against humanity by any Iraqi or foreign personality from the current and previous regimes, whether they were officials or independent operators
  
• All corruption and theft of public funds
  
• Acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing, or sectarian cleansing
  

To the Iraqi Political Forces

We recommend that the Iraqi Government, Iraqi political parties, and Iraqi forces of resistance accept and act faithfully to realize the following:

• The Iraqi political groups have to commit to the building of a strong national government in Baghdad within the confines of democratic controls of transparency, non-sectarianism, and participation based of Iraqi citizens dedicate to the success of a unified democratic Iraq.
  
• The institutions of the government, including army, security, and diplomatic services, has to be built on the principles of service, professionalism, non-political meddling, and definitely not on sectarian basis.
  
• Open national political dialogue where all sides are allowed to freely and safely participate in the national debate and the rebuilding of Iraq. This dialogue should lead to internationally supervised open elections, an open process to reform the Constitution.
  
• End the Debaathification program and replace that with a strong cooperation with the internationally established and independent Truth, Accountability, and Justice (TAJ) Commission.
  
• All parties commit to the end of foreign meddling, intervention, and the withdrawal of all non-Iraqi bases and forces.
  
• Iraq should assume full responsibility for the resettlement of Iraqi displaced persons and refugees.
  

Regional and International Interested Parties

We call on the regional and international parties, particularly countries bordering Iraq, to:

 

Commit to, and facilitate the building of a strong unified national government in Baghdad within a unified non-sectarian Iraq. They should also actively participate and support the effort of international mechanism to sustain and support the relocation of Iraqi refugees. Respect the will of the Iraqi people, expressed through free elections. End the unjust debt imposed on Iraq thought the past 25 years. Facilitate and participate in the effort to reconstruct Iraq to the interest of the Iraqi people.