This is a second page of your comments on the security situation in Iraq.
The following comments reflect the balance of views we have received:
The US needs to step up its troops and fully occupy, for a time, the whole country and not just the cities. The war is not over. We need to put in place enough troops to properly fight it. If possible, aid agencies should stay in Iraq. Their leaving reduces the perception of their neutrality.
It is easy to invade a country, but extremely difficult to get out. The USA will be bogged down for a considerable time in Iraq. The USA attacked and disposed of Saddam, not because of weapons of mass destruction, but for military, economic and political aims. A Vietnam scenario will unfold here.
Mfundisi, Gaborone, Botswana
I think it's impossible to make Iraq secure (remember Vietnam) also one million soldier cannot control the whole country, oil pipeline and other strategic sites. I'm sorry for Mr. Bush but the war in Iraq was not the right way to solve problems. I think that history teaches that violence is a negative spiral that drives directly to Hell.
Tiziano Radice, Italy
Foolish question! No country can be made secure if terrorists wish to operate there. Not Britain, not Switzerland, not the American homeland itself! All it takes is the resolve of one person after another to create terror and destruction. Look out world! There are more and more frustrated and angry people out there! And removing the source of the frustrations will not help, either. In Iraq they are bombing the Red Cross and hospitals... killing policemen. These are the people that benefit from chaos. There is no way to stop them, I'm afraid.
Paul Dunn-Morris, Salmon Arm, Canada
All weapons, other than those in the hands of the troops and Iraqi police, should be handed in. Anyone caught with a weapon should be heavily fined. Large cash rewards should be given to anyone giving information that could prevent bombings and suicide attacks. The radio and television should broadcast all the positive things that are being done for the Iraqi people, and accentuate how the terrorists are hurting the Iraqi people and prolonging the agony of occupation. I would also make sure that the Iraqi people are reminded what the alternative is. A return of Saddam Hussein.
San Francisco, USA
From a strategic point, the terrorists removed the aid agencies which brought food and health to the Iraqis to get more support and fighters. When regular Iraqis go hungry, they will join the terrorist or fight on their own against the American "invaders". The only way to bring more security is bring food and medicine to the people (make them happy) and show that they have respect for their religion as well as showing signs that they will be moving out of the country soon.
Huayna Capac, Lima, Peru
I think the situation in Iraq will stabilize only when the people get to the point that they take responsibility for their own security and quit thinking that the coalition forces can guarantee their security.
Salina, Kansas USA
It is going to be an uphill task to bring some order into the ravaged country. It cannot happen without getting the people engaged in the reconstruction effort. Broadening the coalition in the form of UN Control and participation gives credence to the people and brings many sceptics into more active participation in the reconstruction effort. It is very apparent that although people are happy that a tyrant has been removed, there is no sense of gratification and acceptance of the occupying power.
K.K.Mohan, New Delhi, India
It is absolutely impossible for Iraq to be made secure while US troops remain there. In recent days we have seen the bombing of the ICRC headquarters and the UN headquarters before that. Why are leaders of these organizations so blind in not seeing that all contributions to the stability of that country is seen by the Iraqi resistance as legitimizing the coalition invasion. In short, the US and its allies must wake up and smell the coffee - the Iraqi people don't want to become another debtor nation of the US. The Iraqi's are a proud people - not people who are inferior to the Americans.
Chris K Ralph, Auckland, New Zealand
America came in Iraq on the back of its military might under beliefs that Iraq would be a mere pushover. However it failed to implement lessons learnt in the Vietnam war - the power of the people is greater than any other war machine. Today American soldiers are being killed regularly in Iraq and there is no eye wet in Baghdad. America often acts on the advice of intelligence reports or their think-tanks hardly aware of realities on the ground. It was evident when they asked Turkey to contribute troops to their efforts in Iraq without knowing that even their own hand-picked governing body would overwhelmingly reject such a move. The Americans must know that deaths in their camps would continue until the day the last American soldier leaves Iraq. An occupation force has to face the music America faces today.
Hamid Raza Wattoo,
I have one bold proposal, but the only possible solution to the "security problem" in Iraq.
The only person that CAN deliver security in Iraq is the last legal president of Iraq, Mr. Sadam Hussein.
The US should get out of Iraq NOW, and let Mr. Saddam Hussein regain power and re-establish civil and military authority in Iraq.
If he didn't already make an alliance with al-Qaeda, Mr. Hussein would have been the best possible ally against them.
Try demilitarising Iraq by sector and try to separate the innocents from the real terrorist.
Start off with a sector and clear all potential threats, remove arms make it an arms free zone.
Increase and improve security for the cleared zone and then move on to the other sector, if there is resistance, inform the sector occupants to make the choice of joining us or the terrorist groups.
By doing this we can disassociate the innocents and prevent further violent or negative influence; in the end we will catch the culprit who is hiding and using the local populace as a shield and heaven to launch their attack.
It is an easy task, but will take careful and precise planning.
Ratu Jone T .Tavainavesi, Dili , East Timor
Security can not be imposed on the Iraqi people. They must feel it and want it. As long as the people of Iraq feel that the American led coalition is an occupying force the resistance will continue. America has two tasks. Firstly it must win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Secondly the Americans must broaden and Internationalize the responsibility for bringing stability to Iraq as quickly as possible enunciating a clear exit strategy and a timeline that is credible and realistic. If not the voice of millions moderates in Iraq will be drowned by a few extremists and securing Iraq will only be a pipe dream.
Nahil, Nawala, Sri Lanka
Many here seem to suggest that the UN should replace the US in Iraq. The Iraqis have already shown that they hate the UN as much as they hate the US. They will not accept a UN that acted as a tool of USA and caused the population of Iraq to go down a million during the last 12 years. I think the Arab League or OIC will be better choices.
Abraham K, Canada / India
The US cannot withdraw from Iraq because it has put its prestige on the line. Therefore, it will stay in Iraq in some form for decades to come. No matter what form of 'democracy' arises in Iraq, the Iraqi people will never be free, safe, or prosperous in the foreseeable future. Low intensity resistance against the US by a minority of Iraqis will bring misery for Iraq and much of the Middle East.
I firmly was opposed to this conflict, believing there were other ways to deal with Saddam Hussein. It is a classic example of the US led west, diving in, creating a mess, and then having no idea how to solve the long term issues. I am sure that Iraq will be stabilised, but after how many more deaths of innocent people, I don't know. Surely, if wars in the past have taught us nothing else, enough people have lost their lives needlessly.
David G Cunningham, Dalgety Bay, Scotland
Yes, Iraq can be made secure, by Iraqis, with help from the coalition. It worked in Japan, can it not work in Iraq? Are the Iraqis less capable then the Japanese? I believe not! Are the Iraqis not as hard working as the Japanese? I believe not! What an opportunity for the Iraqis to have the most powerful nations on earth willing to do handstands to make their country work. Now is the time, Iraqis strike while the iron is hot, and make the most of the opportunity in front of you.
Only when the people of Iraq rise up against the terrorists in their midst and execute them. It's in the hands of the Iraqis. They must resolve their affairs.
William Thorne, Brisbane, Australia
I think the Iraq people are not patient enough to deal with the situation. This has been used by Saddam's group to steer violence in Iraq. Only Iraqi people can solve their own problems. They have to be patient dealing with the reality.
Francisco da Costa Guterres,
Dili, East Timor
Iraq can be made secure if they can build up their own army and intelligence operations under Iraqi benevolent governance. Iraqi's have the biggest stake in this situations because their country is once again being torn apart by selfish people who are only concerned with their own agenda and not the welfare and comfort of the beleaguered Iraqi populace.
New York, New York USA
The strategy to win the war on terrorism should have been based on intelligence and information, with insiders tracking and selecting the targets and thus blowing the terror league from the inside. But Bush decided to use conventional military strategy and now things are really messed up. Before Afghanistan there was some chance to have the cooperation of local people in various Islamic states to bring down the terrorists.
Now I feel that nobody will collaborate with Yankees or Brits. This war on terrorism is headed to become a shameful failure. And Iraq as well as Afghanistan are a long, but a very, very long way from normality, thanks to the axis of evil: Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Collin Powel, Blair, Aznar and some others.
Said Abou Ghaouche Netto, Sao Paulo - Brazil
The US is on the right track in rebuilding Iraq and there is no doubt that Iraq will become a democracy that will be a model for the region. I think the critics of the US efforts should reserve judgement. Rebuilding a country after years of brutality will take time which no one except US can accomplish. At the end of the day, the entire world will thank the US and we should all pray for the safety of the brave men & women who are architects of this effort.
You have an OCCUPATION army in Iraq, how do you want to make it secure? "OCCUPATION"... Do you want me to spell it for you?
In May 2000 the Israelis had to cut and go from South Lebanon. The Russian had to cut and leave from Afghanistan. The smart Americans think they can do better in Iraq. Sorry, it is common sense that occupiers are not welcome. They either leave on their own or will be forced to ... in humiliation.
Hisham, Toronto, Canada
The only way Iraq can be made secure is by having a real coalition of nations enforcing peace not just the US and a few countries. Personally, I still think the US make a huge mistake by going it alone. I do not see anything like peace in Iraq the way things are at the moment.
Henry Oviahon, China
We should have never gone in there. OK Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, but so is Mugabe, and his nation is part of the commonwealth. Blair runs scared of him, as there is no interest there by George Bush. Sadly, in Iraq, the only way law and order will improve is an absolute dictatorship, because now the US/UK have caused a power vacuum and until firm control can be reached these attacks will continue. It's a mess and other countries don't want to know, who can blame them?
David Hamilton, Barkingside, Essex
When it is secure, Iraqis won't be able to thank most in the world community, or UN. Their unwillingness to do the right thing in standing up to worst the world has to offer is telling. They play right into the hands of extremists by trying to appease them. The last time that happened the US, UK, and a few other friends had to clean up the mess in Europe and Asia during WW2. The UN was formed to replace the League of Nations after that. It's now time to scrap most of the UN, except for food and medical aid. As for the political side of the UN, it's dead.
As correctly stated by the Pope (before this war started) he who decided that he decides to go to war is responsibly for the repercussions. The Bush admin. (who is responsible for the current state of chaos in Iraq) has tried lately to share the burden with other countries without sharing the control. As long as the illegal occupation of Iraq continues and the US has control, the attacks will continue. Only when an organization that has no economical stakes in Iraq takes control, the people of Iraq will be less sceptical and more helpful in the reconstructions efforts. Without public support or tolerance these attacks cannot continue.
The path to security in Iraq lies not in Iraq itself, but elsewhere around the world. By clearing up the Israeli/Palestinian issue, by addressing the extreme imbalance between the economies of the North and South, by instituting foreign policy initiatives which give all the people of the world a voice and engender a state of mutual trust, and by treating foreign lands, governments, cultures, customs, and peoples with respect, the USA and the rest of the world can ultimately defeat terrorism and bring security to Iraq. Military action as enacted by the USA so far in Bush's term will not achieve peace and security in Iraq, in the Middle East, or around the world in general.
Curt Kurschus, Auckland, New Zealand
Sadly, the actions of Britain and America in Iraq seem to have brought about the very outcome which was most feared, namely an alliance between Baathist elements and Al Qaeda. It would be very difficult to imagine suicide bombing being used as a tool by the secular, materialist Baathist adherents. Wwhat we are seeing now is a potent synthesis between two deadly forces. Stability seems very far away.
kevin mcinerney, london, england
Secure for who? For those who want to "invest" into Iraq's "future" as they invested into Cuba's "future"? Iraq will not be secure until all foreigners leave the country. It's only to the Iraqi's people to decide their future and level of democracy: weapons will not do that. If they want to kill each others then let them do that. Just let them alone!
Milos Milisavljevic, Canada
It is hard to see how Iraqi citizens can be prevented from attacking an invasion force unless the force leaves. It is an issue of liberation. It seems odd to complain of a few foreign 'terrorists' when the occupation is one of foreign armies. Aid agencies have a key role to play in the reconstruction and they are able to do that in some parts of the country.
You have to admit that the insurgents strategy is superb with respect to the US strategy. They hit the US troops at random to create keep them off balance and then hit the NGO's so that any rebuilding effort is diminished. Perhaps there is an "old man in the mountain" somewhere.
Bob Kosko, Pittsburgh USA
The suicide bombers appear to be embarked on a schooling initiative. The pupils are the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The lesson is that anything less than strict impartiality invites death. The ICRC accepts anyway-we-like interpretations of the Geneva Conventions by the America, whereas it should be reporting them for grave violations. The UN allows its chamber to be used for crude propaganda purposes, as happened the run-up to war; accepts grievous insult to its charter by a run-amok America; and finally rubber stamps the invasion as legitimate. Kofi Annan and the executive committee of the Red Cross have endangered the lives of their employees by toadying to the aggressor.
It is sad to see there are still some who believe that we liberated Iraq. If our government had wanted to liberate Iraq, it would have enabled insurgent forces to do so and then leave them in charge once Saddam was gone. The Iraqis finally realized that the US is there to stay, and they will fight to the death to keep their nation. Can you blame them?
Claire Whitley, Raleigh, USA
Operation Iraqi freedom, right. I can't see any other future for Iraq than the one already seen in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Decades of anarchy, civil war, extreme poverty and no end in sight. I suppose that's freedom, then.
Janne Virtanen, Helsinki Finland
Iraq is not ours to make secure. We invaded illegally, and have not found what we claimed was there to justify going in. So why not withdraw now? If we were honourable about this, that would be the thing to do. But our governments are not there for honourable reasons, and will not withdraw. They took a lot of political risk to get there, and they're not leaving now.
Jo, Guildford, UK
Americans doesn't understand the culture of Iraq. It is tribal culture where if someone through a rock on you then you through a brick. Therefore, people getting killed everyday they ought to take revenge. I hope we can stop this ongoing killing in the world now.
AASIM, Miami, USA
It seems as though the civil war that is breaking out is something that was just waiting to happen. The coalition invasion only served to bring it forward, rather than cause it.
Graeme Phillips, Berlin, Germany (normally UK)
I hate to say this but the coalition is legally bound to stay until Iraq is secure. Firstly and most importantly they should re-hire the Iraqi army then deploy it through Iraq to maintain order. The coalition is also legally bound to provide basic services like electricity and water. Where have all those billions gone? Saddam had electricity and water running through the last 12 years with no spares it should not take 6 months to fix.
Why is the US not protecting the Iraqi borders? This is an essential and basic step to prevent terrorists from suffocating the country.
I fear our leadership, such as it is, has made a mess of things (not without some help from Mr. Blair but nonetheless my government must accept the bulk of the blame). Now that the completely predictable and predicted situation has come to pass, we find ourselves stuck. We can't leave, goes the conventional wisdom, because we must finish the job. As a veteran of Viet Nam, the current batch of inept, self-serving, twits have said nothing I have not heard before. Yes, we can leave: the same way we got there. Just load the boys on a plane and bring them back.
Martin Coady, New Marlborough, MA, USA
Once again we see the consequence of a unilateral strike against a country. This country should never have been invaded like this and the whole country is feeling the negative impacts. If people are really concerned about Iraqi's security then the striking warlords should immediately leave the country to the Iraqis and keep on rebuilding the country by financing for the rest of the century just to make up for the hateful acts they have committed in the name of WMD.
There were and still are a lot of wrongs about the war or the option of going to war: To claim WMD's were in Iraq without proof was wrong. Saddam's rule of Iraq was wrong. The present attacks are wrong. Getting the ordinary Iraqi's take and views on what they want and making that a reality is the only right and good thing both parties can do. And it will ultimately get everyone's support.
Maikano Mmolawa, Botswana
The present situation in Iraq seems to once again confirm the maxim: "Violence begets violence." Only a few months ago, so much of Baghdad was being transformed into flames and rubble by massive bombings. Now, we are witnessing more bombings likely in response. It seems logical that the US government officials who are attempting to control Iraq make a concerted effort to cede that aim to a more neutral party. Perhaps, this means having the United Nations be the interim authority until the Iraqis form their own government.
The world must condemn the awful attack on the Red Cross. No matter what opinion is, based on old history, their neutrality is paramount and the good they do far outweighs any perceived feelings about the past.
Alan McLaughlin, Taines
Under foreign occupation the world should never expect calm in Iraq unless and until occupiers leave the destiny of the country to Iraqis themselves. Even the poorest African country would not let go free an aggressor, an occupying force. All will unite to repel the aggression. Please leave Iraq alone and allow a multinational force under total UN mandate to oversee reconstruction.
Zuberi, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Believe it or not but the Bush and his administration has put this world in chaos by attacking Iraq and not listening to the rest of the world. I feel now this is going to be a tough lesson for Bush for taking unilateral action. If they leave it they are in trouble, if they don't they are in trouble and see how many more innocent lives are lost due to his wrong decision.
Many US comments say: "If we leave, there will be chaos". But what is it now? The coalition can't even secure their Hotel. It was a mistake to lie about WMD, it was a mistake to attack, it is a mistake to stay. But Bush knows if he admits defeat, he must quit. There is no other reason to stay.
Stefan, Berlin, Germany
The question isn't a matter of occupation; it's simply respect for the USA for what they have done for their country. I feel USA should now withdraw, and let the Iraqis find out what real chaos is. Then America's "occupation" might not seem so bad?
Richard, Middlesbrough, UK
It is time that the Occupation Authority call upon all Baghdadis to work together to defeat this. This is not something the Americans can do alone. A strong police force that stabilizes the country, even at the expense of some civil liberties for a while. Nothing however remotely as extreme as Saddam's ruthless and evil tactics. We must rally the world on our side. It is time for Arab countries to see these terrorists for what they are. They kill other Arabs at will, without any thought to their families or their lives. We need the world on our side, and the world must stop the blather. Help for the sake of stability in the Middle East, for your own self interested economies, and most importantly for the Iraqi people.
Washington, DC, US
All of the voices ringing with idealistic images of our government caring for the Iraqis are quite nostalgic, but seriously confused in my opinion. The U.S. government cares little for the Iraqis, and the resistors know it. If someone truly cared, they would really be giving Iraqis the voice, and probably help them establish an economy that will be more helpful to them rather than serving the capitalistic greed that keeps the US so powerful. The world needs genuine care, not guns and bombs disguised as "goodwill."
Mindy Gelder, Iwakuni, Japan (US citizen)
Do you think the insurgents care whether full authority is handed over to the Iraqi people? Let's be realistic! The chaos and terror would no doubt continue in earnest if coalition forces withdrew. There is a power vacuum in Iraq. There are many different factions vying for power-including those desirous to form a Theocracy like that of Iran. Such is the cost of removing a ruthless dictator from power.
Aristotle states in "Politics": "For a state with a body of disfranchised citizens who are numerous and poor must necessarily be a state which is full of enemies."
The only way to secure Iraq is to let the people of Iraq secure Iraq. First step US out.
Whitethorn Ca. USA
Two things will happen sooner or later: Americans will shoot at everyone of dark complexion, thus making this a truly colonial conflict. Then they will pull out (I can already see the last US chopper lifting off the roof of their HQ) and the Iraq civil war will start. I just wonder how the idiots around Bush will sell this as a more secure world.
Ronald Vopel, Brussels, Belgium
Rome wasn't built in a day and Iraq cannot be rebuilt in 6 months. The United States is not impatient. We will stay as long as it takes for a new constitution to be written, elections to be held, and Iraq can govern itself once again.
Michael, Chicago, USA
This coalition failed to provide enough security to aid agencies all along and it is now time for them to leave and let the Arab league and the UN play a central transition role. Americans should extricate their young women and men from this danger of Bush administration's naivety.
Steven, Windhoek, Namibia
The attacks by the resistance movement will continue in the short term.
To checkmate such hostilities as quickly as possible, the occupation authorities has a paramount obligation to transfer political power to the Iraqis and they must do so as soon as practicable.
The Iraqi citizenry must see that their own leaders are gradually being placed in charge in running their own affairs, with the assistance of the UN and these external bodies, separate and outside of the occupation forces.
The longer the occupation lasts, the longer the resistance will continue.
Ben Yusuff, Washington, DC/USA
We have a saying here in America. "Freedom is not Free"
If we gave up every time the going got tough, the world would be much worse than it is. Some people would just like to leave the Iraqis high and dry. I for one think the people on earth deserve more than they are getting and Iraq is just the start of freeing people from tyrannical dictators. It takes commitment, which obviously a lot of people around the world don't have. They like to run and hide when the going gets tough.
It is very difficult to convince the common Iraqis that the Americans invaded for their good.
Whatever infrastructure the Americans build for them, the feeling of invasion remains. Security will arrive back in Baghdad only when the last American troops leave the country, which is not acceptable to Americans.
Whether it's the war which was waged by Mr. Bush and his coalition or the brutal killings of Saddam or whomsoever ultimately the innocent Iraqis are suffering.
Prakash Bharatam, Germany/India
The resistance attacks and suicide bombings send an unambiguous message that Iraq will never be governed by the US, or any quisling government. The UN, by co-operating with America in the aftermath of illegal war, has made itself and agencies a target for reprisal. The ICRC has blundered by not insisting on POW status for the multitude of "detainees" in Iraq and elsewhere, especially Guantanamo Bay, and has lost its neutral status in the eyes of many. These attacks on humanitarian organisations is the end product of decades of selective application of international law and failure to enforce the Geneva Conventions.
Carlos J. Carolino, Lisboa, Portugal
I hope this site isn't representative of all Europeans because if it is, you are so weak and cowering. The first signs of difficulty and trouble, and you turn tail and run.
Sorry, but America post 9-11, under a Republican government refuses to be that way. Clinton's reign was one of Euro-appeasement for 8 years. A reign that gave Osama bin Laden hope and prompted him to view the US as a Paper Tiger. But this Tiger is now awake and it has claws.
To Jason US
What are us "Europeans" "turning tail and running from".......WMDs?
I agree with you Jason, Europeans, in this matter are being weak, spineless and defeatist. All they do is talk and cower behind the banner of 'failed diplomacy'. It takes time to stabilise a country after it has endured decades of brutality and oppression. Those who benefitted from Saddam's regime knows that if the coalition fails it would be to their advantage. Americans are stubborn and proud and no matter how long it takes we will secure Iraq. So to all you naysayers in Europe grow a backbone.
There has not yet been any country in the world that, having been occupied by another, has not suffered from subsequent continuing bloodshed, regardless of the reasons for invasion and occupation.
Iraq was never going to be any different and as long as there is an occupying force there will be those who will do all they can to remove it. Thus the carnage will continue.
The most significant statement ever made by George Bush was when he said that he would "impose democracy" on Iraq. Is there any nation in the world that would have another country impose its rule on it and not resist?
This is another Vietnam, another Palestine, another Northern Ireland, etc. We never learn.
Julian, Salisbury UK
Iraq can only become secure when a government of their own is selected and America pulls out. Mr Bush needs to move a lot faster on that process. Too many innocent lives are being lost for oil money.
Christian Day, Trinidad. West Indies
This (the recent bombings) is a yet another example of the fact that the resistance in Iraq, whether it's local or foreign, is organizing itself. Thus I'd say that the world should join forces and prevent it from happening before it's too late. The US should hand over the leadership to UN so they could create a neutral peacekeeping force which could bring stability to Iraq and speed up the process of handing over the power to the ones it belongs - the Iraqis.
The US was foolishly naive to think that they would be able to create a democracy in Iraq. It should be no surprise that a politically inexperienced, impoverished country torn by racism and religious divisions such as Iraq has descended into chaos after the society's one stabilizing force, Saddam, was removed. The Americans should have planned to simply replace Saddam with a dictator of their own choosing, who would provide iron fisted security rather than the pandemonium we're seeing now.
James Gerbert, Republic of Korea
Iraq is a new Vietnam . I'm sorry, but that's what I think.
Brazil ; Recife-PE
I do not think there is much chance for Iraqi people to get rid of the occupants by peaceful means, unless they are willing to cope with a pro-American puppet government that sells out Iraq's natural resources and interests.
I hope that "international aid organizations" will stop collaborating with the aggressors. For instance the ICRC accepts the American view that "detainees" are no POWs and does not insist on inspections to reinforce the Geneva Conventions. If this is not collaboration what is it then?
Dr Gunnar Bali,
There is a Tamil proverb which says that it is great to stay in your own mud hut and have a cup of porridge than staying in someone's palace and having a lavish food. The same way the people of Iraq will prefer to lead peaceful simple life than accepting all the help the rich nations want to give. It is still not too late for the two powerful nations to realise their mistake. I hope wisdom will overtake madness. Best wishes to USA whom I admire in many ways.
RM.Thannirmalai, Johore Baru,Malaysia
People want a quick-fix solution, which is not going to happen, what people have to realise is that this is a country about the size of France, not the UK. Yes Iraq can be made secure, but time is needed, give it.
Steven Marshall, UK
Iraq cannot be made secure. With Bush providing more than enough reasons for terrorist attacks, it will never be secure; the war on terrorism will never stop. The U.S. seems only to become more disliked with time, even by its own citizens - and this is perfectly understood by many Americans
Enoch, Maryland, USA
There is a Pashtu saying "every difficult conundrum has its possible solution". These days Iraq has become a conundrum for the Bush administration but it is not that it is unsolvable. The attacks in Iraq can be ended if the doors through which intruders enter Iraq are closed as indigenous violent opposition is too small.
Riffatullah Marwat, Lakki Marwat, Pakistan
When the ICRC is seen as an enemy to be attacked, I see little hope for the nation of Iraq. Those who wish to help are being pushed away, the people of Iraq need to take a firm stand and show that this not what the majority wants to see and that they themselves will help in every way to stop such atrocities from happening in their own country.
Judith Norwood-Parsons, USA
I cannot believe that nobody is writing about the good things that are happening in Iraq. What about the fact that relatives are no longer disappearing in the night, that Iraq has free newspapers, etc. Oh, that's right...good stories don't sell newspapers or make tv news! Stories about dictators and terrorism do. Thanks US for trying to spread freedom. History will prove your noble intentions.
How can Iraq be made secure by the authorities?
The British and Americans who are administering the country by right of armed conquest have no moral mandate, and all patriotic Iraqis know that they have to go. When they do go there will no one person or party capable of reuniting the country except by the return to the kind of brutal regimen that was there under the Bath party. Iraq is doomed to ten years of strife, whatever happens.
Further attacks can be prevented by involving more Iraqis in running their own country. The coalition forces need to become less visible and engage in more covert operations to counter these attacks. It would be disastrous if the aid agencies left Iraq. They need better security. Iraq needs help ,not withdrawal by aid agencies and coalition forces because they are being attacked.
Nana Afrifa, England
I think, Iraq needs new Saddam to set order and to make their life more or less secure.
Mikhail Kononov, Russia
It is very hard to tell, but this is going to br another Somalia where lawlessness will prevail. I suggest that the foreign nations exit Iraq and leave them to carry out their own reforms. As long as the reforms are seen as being foreign, no peace will prevail and the aid agencies will just be targets as all foreign troops, because in the eyes of pro Saddam Iraqis, they are furthering the objectives of Americans and other western powers.
L. Makombe, Zimbabwe
The security situation in Iraq leaves much to be desired. While Saddam is at large, the former regime has a focal point and a hope, however slim, of a returning to power.
There is no way that the British and Americans can consider leaving Iraq in these circumstances. For any future government to succeed in Iraq, the country needs to be rid of Saddam and his followers
Colin Smith, France
I used to be employed by a UN agency supplying humanitarian assistance and have been resident in areas that could be called hazardous. However all of those countries where I was had a national government which had security in place for us. There is no national government in Iraq consequently one has to rely on the occupying forces for this. Clearly they cannot cope. Consequently yes, all aid agencies should advise their staff to leave until such time as the situation stabilises. We were all dedicated to our jobs, but it is pointless to be regarded as a soft target and lose one's life.
In South Vietnam the US also started with "State-building" and their stupid "can-do" attitude. Attacks where dismissed with "we won't abandon our friends" after many American deaths (and much more Vietnamese) they left with their tales between their legs. The question is not how many Iraqi's die, the body count is on American side, world opinion don't matter, American opinion does.
S Francis, Luxemburg
Secure? Well, it certainly seems to be free from weapons of mass destruction.
There is no doubt Allies are being seen as occupiers of Iraq. Saddam loyalists will keep trying to burn their lamps in the name of anti American feelings. Therefore UN needs to take control of security, so that Iraqis can whole heartedly fight the remnants of Saddam regime.
Secure from what? From Iraqis wanting to run their own country and have control of their own oil and destiny? Had the whole affair been triggered by the UN it may have been a different story but this saga is one begun by a greedy nation not previously known for its ability to handle this sort of unrest. It's hard to see any peaceful outcome until the US leaves and pays damages.
I always said this would be America's 'Northern Ireland', rather than another Vietnam. So, is everyone ready for 25 years of this?
Andrew , UK
Well it was sure to happen. Saddam was tough no nonsense, even cruel, he had to be in order to control the many diverse factions.
Even if the US / UK armed presence is ever accepted by the majority of people in Iraq, there will still be the minorities who will have the support of the passive majority.
The problem now is that we invading armies cannot leave Iraq, which would definitely amount to genocide.
I think that when people in Iraq start seeing progress - hospitals, infrastructure etc they can believe this war was for their benefit rather than their ruin. The problem at the moment is nothing has been done in such a long time and they are tired and angry which leaves them vulnerable to those with more sinister motivations. We are all running the risk of leaving Iraq in a worse state than it was before the war.
Rema Sabri, UK
Agencies, NGOs, like ICRC, brave individuals who dare to care about the world, within and beyond their own country boarders, are doing more for stability and future of Iraq, than all the armies in the world.
It's a shame to target humanitarians, and as a matter of fact, a war crime. But, of course, humanitarian agencies must remain in spite of this dreadful situation. Nobody wonders about what the Iraqi people must do in such a situation. It's the job of agencies like the ICRC to work in war situations which, by definition, aren't holidays. And it should be the job of the whole international community, and not only of the American coalition, to protect them.
Iraq can and will be secure and stable again, once full sovereignty and control is given back to Iraqis and the US Army and all the other foreign troops, leave Iraq. This is because all America's enemies around the world are unfortunately, using Iraq now as there battleground with America, and the poor Iraqis are caught up in the middle of this American "War on Terrorism".
Zaid Al-Hindawi, UK (Iraqi Exile)
If the aid agencies pull out then the terrorists will have achieved what they set out to do. I fear this would then only encourage the terrorists to continue the same tactic with all other foreign organizations.
It would be wise and beneficial to their integrity if they were to leave now. Staying will only associate them with the occupying forces. Also, dismissing these attacks as mere terrorist acts undermines the Iraqi's will to resist the foreign invasion. I can't imagine that the American people would take well to a trigger happy and arrogant Iraqi invasion.
Bekim Shehu, Albania
The country is full of weapons and former army personnel who are now unemployed and bitter towards the occupying US army. As long as there are US troops to attack, the bloodshed will go on. A clearly neutral, international peacekeeping force is the only alternative to violence and anarchy.
Mikko Rakkolainen, Finland
It's time for the international community to take a full part in Iraq. I think that even the Bush administration has understood that the go-it alone policy was not the right one. I don't think that the attack of the UN and above all the Red Cross are the act of Iraqis, they are both Islamist attack. Like it or not Iraq is becoming Viet Nam and no country (even France Germany and Russia) have an interest to see the coalition fail now.
I am a civilian working in Al Hillah, Iraq. The majority of Iraqis, especially in the Shia areas are becoming increasingly happy with the coalition efforts. But with the large population base and crowded cities, it is easy for the terrorist, who are also targeting Iraqis, to operate. It is important for the aid agencies to stay in Iraq as they provide the common people with medical and construction hope.
Timothy Severino, Iraq
Until the US transfers complete power to the UN, as an illegal occupier, their presence will continue to grow resentment and instability in a country that wants to be self governed, now.
I never agreed to this war, but I certainly do not agree to the world turning their back on innocent Iraq people now. I hope the world can show some positive teamwork in this situation.
The attacks show that in contrast to what politicians in the US and UK are saying, the situation is not secure at all and in fact worsening every day. Under these circumstances it is not possible to perform any meaningful work as a lot of efforts and resources are pumped into their own safety and not to the benefit of the Iraqi people. So staying there is just wasting resources and manpower, therefore all relief agencies should leave until the situation is secure enough to work for the Iraqis. Under international law, the occupying forces are obliged to maintain and improve safety for all, evidently the so- called coalition forces are seriously at fault yet again.
M. Dikmans, Belgium
Attacks like this will cause an increase in foreign troops, not a decrease. Do they not understand that the Coalition WILL NOT leave until a new government is formed?
It is no surprise that the Iraqis are increasing their attack on the occupying forces, as the situation on the ground is no better than what it was under Saddam Hussain. It is going to be worse in the days to come. Sooner the Americans and their allies leave Iraq, the better for themselves and the Iraqis. By removing Saddam, they have created a fertile ground for all possible elements to resurface and all of them have one thing in common, anti American and anti-western sentiments. What a disaster!
Leave it to the UN completely......No Global Policing!!
Apparently, those attacks are against the coalition forces (had the US Defence Secretary been wounded and no-one would have doubts about it), and aid agencies become easy targets for killing soldiers... Try removing the armed forces and see if aid agencies still get attacked... That's another way to put the question...
Those who say security would be brought about by the withdrawal of the coalition are merely giving voice to their own prejudices. The current terrorist actions are aimed at all parties trying to build a new democratic Iraq and perpetrated by those who are bitter at having lost the power they once wielded. Any withdrawal at this stage would be a disaster for the Iraqis who need all the support they can get to help them escape the brutal nightmare that has oppressed them for decades and would continue to do so given half the chance.
John Cahill, UK
The American administration has WMD. By defeating the American army in Iraq, Bush would be removed, and the Iraqis would have paid back the Americans for removing Saddam.
Sure if the US and other occupying forces (and their corporate co.'s) leave the country and the UN receives a broad mandate along with sufficient resources for their task. The de-Baathification was a severe mistake, in any transition one has to let stakes be hold by the old regime. Iraq under Baath led by Saddam was a very structured state that provided for a lot of things, since US got in there is a wide gap unfilled.
The attack on the Red Cross is an outrage and should be condemned for what it is - an attack on a neutral and impartial humanitarian agency. What it also shows is that while some in the coalition are trying to present a picture of improvement, the reality is very different.
Unlike some members of the UN, Red Cross personnel have never been accused of cowardice. Of course they will stay.
John M Johnson, U.K.
Secure, safe for whom?
Every attack on US/UK troops is by default labelled as a terrorist attack. But is that the reality? The US/UK went into war on false pretext if they admit it and leave it to the international community and Iraqis then it can become a safe, secure place. The security should be more for Iraqis...But when there are a large number of Iraqis picked up by coalition forces and taken into custody without any legal protection will ensure that it becomes safer for future terrorists.
Avinash P, India