An effigy of George Bush - attired in a snappy business attire with briefcase in hand - twisted in the wind for hours before being dragged from its perch and set afire - as Iraq army snipers squatted atop rooftops on-the-ready to tackle any outbreaks of violence in the streets.
As far as the eye could see, thousands of Iraq citizens knelt in prayer, as clerics openly denounced a Status of Forces Agreement that parliament was preparing to vote on next week.
Although the terms of the agreement stipulated a withdrawal of U.S. forces by the end of next June (2009) and set a deadline for December 31 (2011) the anxious crowd was skeptical.
Some accused the government of not setting any withdrawal deadlines, while others quite blatantly expressed their opinion that even if the terms were specific, both the U.S. government and Iraqi officials could not be trusted to follow through on any signed agreement.
When asked when they'd like to see the U.S. troops take leave, a few vocal protestors were quite adamant in their responses.
"We want them to leave today."
On the practical side, hard-line loyalists assert that there would be less violence in the streets if the U.S. troops were to go home.
Some also pointed out that when the initial occupation began, Iraqi citizens did not anticipate (too naive, maybe?) that six years later there would be intermittent electricity, tainted sewage spilling into the city streets, and military checkpoints stalling thoroughfares and sparking sporadic bombings here and there about the city.
Although some allege they are not familiar with the terms mapped out in the pact, events in recent days signal that perhaps they'd prefer not to know.
After all, when Prime Minister Nouri attempted to read the pact on the Parliament floor, legislators loyal to the opposition were inclined to disrupt the proceedings which led to an open brawl in the chamber.
Maybe that was a calculated maneuver to stall the proceedings?
If a vote is not held early next week before a scheduled holiday, parliament may have trouble meeting the Dec. 31st deadline when the United Nations mandate governing the presence of the U.S. troops expires.
In essence, if the agreement isn't passed by then, American forces will have no legal basis for being in Iraq.
Political analysts are doubtful that the opposition can rustle up sufficient support to prevent the pact from eventually passing.
However, if it slides through with a slim margin, some argue that it could give the Mahdi Army militia an excuse for resuming attacks on the U.S. and Iraqi security forces.
From the sidelines, Iraqi citizens view the whole process with disdain.
"This is a normal consequence, more fighting," one student lamented.
Will the turmoil ever end?
All eyes are turned towards president-elect Barack Obama for the answer, in the final analysis.
No comments:
Post a Comment