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.