My introduction to Iraq began in 1986 when I joined the University of Mosul as a Professor of Engineering. At that time Saddam Hussein was aggressively recruiting foreign nationals to improve higher education in the country. My stay was comfortable and I continued to stay in Iraq for four years. It was widely believed at the time that criticism of Saddam was not permitted. However, one could debate policies and except for this restriction as well as that on travel for Iraqi nationals there was relative peace and prosperity in Iraq. During this period I learnt the Arabic language and made many close friends from amongst the Iraqis. It was believed by many intellectuals including myself at the time that although a restriction on freedoms was regrettable it was an unavoidable necessity in Iraq because without it there was a strong possibility that Iraqis would begin killing each other. There were very deep historical factors that would lead to disturbance unless controlled by a strict hand. Subsequent events have proved that this assumption was a correct one.

Some years ago, when Saddam was removed as a result of military action by US lead coalition forces I sent emails to the White house as well as 10 Downing street in the UK explaining my perception of the situation. My suggestion was that if Iraq could be divided along ethnic lines including some smaller communities to create six or seven provinces in a federal set up then the possibility of peace was greater. The occupying forces could have organized such a division in the heat of victory relatively easily. However that was not done at the time. Recently it appears that a federal set up for Iraq is being considered for three communities the Shia Arabs, Sunni Arabs and Kurds. In my view a division into three entities would also spell problems and lead to the break up of Iraq into three separate countries. Two can gang up against one. A better proposition is to include some other ethnic groups as well; three other groups in Iraq are the Assyrians, Yezhidis and Turkman. Two of them are non-Muslim communities and the third is non-Arab. These three extra communities are minorities but have significant populations that too can be allocated small geographical regions within a new Iraq. A rotating president-ship of the federation by rotation or election by the six presidents may then be possible.

My present knowledge of what is happening in Iraq comes from the media but two concepts being tossed around are beyond my comprehension.

The first is that the coalition forces are training Iraqis for security. That to my mind is a totally ridiculous concept. If it was said that Iraqis are training coalition forces for security that would be more understandable, not the reverse. The Iraqis themselves know far better how to handle the security in Iraq then any outsider. They have done so for five thousand years. The sort of training that Americans can provide is not suitable for Iraqi conditions.

The second concept that is beyond my understanding is the US refrain that they have to win. What do they want to win? There is nothing to win or lose in Iraq. Is the reference to winning peace and stability? If so, then the only way is for the coalition forces to move out since that appears to be one of the causes of instability. Iraq has never been more deprived and unstable in its five thousand year long history than in recent times, after US interference began. It is true that American intentions are in the main sincere good intentions but they are not working. They should quit immediately. It is better for Americans to provide help from the outside and not from within. There is an urgent need to stop the violence and this author believes Iraqis can do it if left alone. Iraqi parents and children are just as sweet as American ones and deserve to live just as much.