In order to rescue Iraq from this vicious circle of violence, there are many scenarios to come up with. Yet, the most privileged and essential condition that will cease violence in Iraq is to constitute a political decree and reflect compromise, joint declarations and will-power in terms of violence issue. When there is a lack of political decree in Iraq, it is futile to discuss matters on the application of law, activation of the authority of police and intelligence and their efficiency in pertaining to fight with the organized crime and terror violence. Then, under these circumstances how will the political decree to put an end to the deaths in Iraq constituted or who will be the responsible?

             Who is to blame in Iraq?
   

It is inevitable for one to confront a long list when searching for the names to blame. From the payrolls of Saddam Hussein reign or the ones failed in posing necessary struggle against the dictatorship of Saddam, to the occupier forces led by USA who were unable to protect Iraqis or the global terrorists, there are many on the list. It is today’s government in Iraq that is not or least involved in these accusations. Is it possible that in the face of violence, today’s government in Iraq takes the easy way out by taking the shelter of the national and international powers or brigands that are listed above and neglects its real responsibilities?

It is only possible to cease the massacre of humanity so long as the authority in Iraq sees through the eyes of the reality and listens to their heart. When anyone is responsible, it is inevitable to think that the authority is not to blame.

The politicians in Iraq cannot govern a country with suppositions or scenarios of a break-up in mind; they only pretend to do so. This hesitant state of mind makes it impossible to create a joint stance against the violence in Iraq, in relation to neither administration nor commoners. The attempts to give an end to this tragedy would be futile without condemning the authority on everyday killings that are hundreds in number and discussing the responsibilities of the “elite” Iraqi administrators.   

The Iraqi administrators and the Kurdish are not to relieve of responsibility

It is for certain that the decision on the unity or the break-up in Iraq is to be given by the Iraqis and Iraqi officials. However, we must identify the hypocrisy of the ones who take work on the administration but fail in succeeding a unified Iraq. In fact, despite the fact that there was a chance to discuss the deeds of the other names for contributing to the vicious circle of violence in Iraq; they haven’t asked for a report.

 A governmental decree, capacity and experience haven’t been developed in Iraq. In particular; it would be appropriate to suggest that the chaos pertaining to security might risk the future of the country. That the Iraqi administrators have a very limited authority on the sanction and direction of security has various causes in basis. Provided that these causes are analyzed in detail, the problem might be dealt with in a constructive manner which will result in a solution.

The first problem to mention is that the Iraqis don’t give a vote of confidence to the officials. And the reason of this lack of confidence lies on the diverse references and privileges of the three majority groups in pertain to the administration. Since lacking experience and having no heritage of a state regime, today’s payrolls that are active in the Iraqi administration make the problems even more complicated.

The Kurdish among the majority groups acts a guest to leave the house other than referring to the problems in Iraq as their own. The Kurdish officials under these circumstances are far from embracing Iraq as homeland or being concerned and making contribution to the solutions. For instance, the speech and declarations of Talabani, sound more like that of a Kurdish leader than an Iraqi President. Supporting this, the speech on PKK is another example to this attitude of the President. His speech on Turkey, the country posing utmost effort to the development of Iraq and its becoming a member of the modern world, cannot be declared with a prudence of the benefits of the majority as well as Kurdish people. The fact that Iraq as the country sacrificing more victims to terrorism than any other country`; enables the terrorist group that plans bloody attacks in other countries, to open bureaus within its national borders, is a major blow on the honesty of Iraq’s “fight with terrorism”. Therefore, it is essential for Iraq give an end to the tradition of the belief in notions like “your enemy- my fighter” issue. Otherwise, a will-power in Iraq for the sake of the fight with terrorism will hardly exist.

Imagine a country that has the most deficits in terrorism and the minister of Foreign Affairs of that particular country states that Iraq is unable to go into action in pertain to the terrorist group, planning bloody attacks for the country; the country which provide Iraq with logistic, technical, and developmental aids. Hoşyar Zebbari of Kurdish origin, who is also the minister of Foreign Affairs of Iraq, in his speech made on 17 October 2006 stated that “there would be no military operations against PKK yet they are on the side of forming a dialogue between Turkey and Kurdish terrorist group which settled and established military bases in Iraq”. This appears as the paradox and conflict Iraq is in. Lack of credibility and confidence in Iraq that are essential in fight with terrorism is the major problem. As long as a common message is sent to the organizations that make use of terror as a vehicle, it is impossible for Iraq to prevent bloody events. In light of this, it should be recognized that PKK means more of a failure in stabilization for Middle East and Iraq than it is for Turkey. Therefore, the “patch-work” authority in Iraq should realize on which value system the future of Iraq actually relies.    

The leading of the value systems should be the will to “keep alive”. Because until today, Iraq has been through limitless experiences in killing yet in terms of keeping alive, narrow-mindedness, vicious circles and conflicts in regional benefits were on the foreground.  As well as reflecting a national will-power on terrorism and drawing the attention and energy on the will to keep alive other than to kill; there should also be an urgent slow down of terrorism.

The sense of belief of the Kurdish officials in a scenario of establishing a Kurdish State; makes it hard for the Iraqi Kurdish to show welcoming and credible reception of the problems concerning Iraqi unity. It is suggested that the Kurdish politicians, who are considered to be the most sceptical about future and the unity of Iraq, will hardly show necessary will-power concerning national issues of Iraq. The Iraqis are given more harm and the three majority groups are making plans of saving regional profit out of this situation. Because of this reason, before convincing the public into believing that there will be a “Guarding Iraq” in the future too, the members of administration should give credit to what they demand.

The Shiites’ views about the future of unified Iraq are not clear. Especially, certain scenarios including Iran, give voice to the question whether Shiites will continue in a unified Iraq or as a separate Shiite state. One of the major handicaps in terms of developing thrust and consciousness of Iraqi citizenship as well as the weakness in administration is the divided maps of Iraq. So that; the voices shouting for the unity of Iraq are getting thinner each day. Because of this reason, the maps supporting a possible break-up not only worries the ones who believe in a unified Iraq  but also encourage the others believing that they are temporarily housing in Iraq.

Conclusion

Each new administration and cycle in Iraq makes the Iraqi long for the predecessors. The transient joy that the Iraqis felt with the end of Saddam’s reign in 2003, turned into a disillusion with the harsh reality of American soldiers. However, it can be stated that the tragedy is to continue. Today’s authority in Iraq regards themselves as a guest in Baghdad and this reception turned into a plunder of each commodity in the house. The desire of the Baghdad plunderers to make a profit out of this chaotic atmosphere, promises nothing but a pessimistic future for the Iraqis.

It is very tragic that the Kurdish, one of the most inoffensive groups in Iraq, has become spendthrift more than ever. That the Kurdish, who are not only supported by the West but also given significant duties in administration; sacrifices Iraq for the sake of their regional profits; moreover they fail in creating a prosperous future, which is a fact that is witnessed by everyone. Having rescued from the chemical weapons of Saddam, the Kurdish leaders were expected to have a wider vision as well as wise and inclusive policies. Apparently, the Kurdish officials in Baghdad consider Erbil and Suleimanieh as a source of revenue and act in the manner of avarice. At this point, at a very crucial time, the Kurdish takes the chance to contribute to the destruction of Iraq and by ignoring their historical heritage; they also make a blow on their future too.

In conclusion, in order to prevent violence and terrorism in local terms, the political decree (National Administration of Iraq) should be given to the public in accordance with the unity and welfare of Iraq and the officials should make the Iraqis give vote of confidence. This vote of confidence should be reflected in terms of military and police organizations thought the country. Keeping in mind that the security forces mostly consist of Kurdish and Shiite Arabians, it would be futile to expect the support from the public in relation to fight with terrorism or prevent those from aiding terrorist organizations. Considering the deficiencies in the Iraqi administration, it could be seen that the declaration suggesting there will be no tolerance for anti-governmental use of power in terms of a national conformity (regardless of the sides that the groups have taken) and the impose of the notion of “Iraqi citizenship” with regard to the selection and training of security forces are very important. The Iraqi authority and the Kurdish officials should not ignore their responsibilities for the sake of easy profits and parochial politics.

Translated from Turkish by Gokce Arslan (USAK)

8 November 2006