On 19 August, The Iraqi capital was hit by six bombings covering headquarters of ministries of Finance and Foreign Affairs, Al-Mustansiriya University, and a bridge linking Yarmuk and Baiyaa districts. The string of bombings killed 95 people and left about 600 injured. Moreover, immense material damage was inflicted on a host of buildings inside the heavily fortified green zone - which contains the core of US and foreign diplomatic missions along with Iraqi government institutions.

The bombings took place six weeks following the US withdrawal from 154 security posts. American combat troops had already withdrawn from Iraqi cities before the end of June 2009 -in accordance with the US-Iraqi security agreement stipulating a gradual withdrawal of US forces. All US forces are supposed to pull out by the end of 2011, while a small unit will remain in Iraq to safeguard the borders.

Indeed, there is a strong belief among Iraqi political circles that the decisions on the part of the Iraqi premier Nuri Al-Maliki to dismantle the blast-proof concrete security walls in Baghdad - established by the Americans to protect vital facilities- was a hasty move "motivated by a sense of false security"- to use the words of Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiar Zebari. High-ranking Iraqi officials hold that the walls are indispensable if strategic facilities are to be protected.

Following the bombings a decision was taken to stop dismantling the so-called T-walls and re-erect those that have already been taken down. A senior Iraqi official who was injured in the bombings told the Washington Post -on condition of anonymity- that Iraqis are not ready yet to assume security responsibilities. By such comment, the Iraqi official alludes that Iraqi security forces are not qualified enough to safeguard vital facilities.

Turbulent political scene
There is a prevailing feeling among the public that the Iraqi premier has failed to handle the security file. The latest tragic bombings would not have taken place without the security forces being infiltrated by terrorist groups. Zebari hinted at this possibility by saying "I do not rule out that some security bodies connived with terrorists in allowing the trucks loaded with explosives to enter the area". The fact that 11 senior security officers were arrested in the immediate aftermath of the bombings comes in the context of these accusations. It is worthy of mentioning that passing trucks loaded with explosive into the highly-protected Green Zone is impossible without collaboration on the part of the Iraqi security forces.

Zebari lashed out at the Iraqi government on the grounds that it failed to put a halt to violence. Instead, he argued, it was satisfied with empty words expressing a misleading sense of optimism. He said that the public are entitled to know the blatant truth, i.e. Iraq is facing a deteriorating security situation and the coming days might be worse.

Beyond doubt, the latest explosions have weakened the premier's political credentials. Hence a new Shia coalition was formed in preparation for the parliamentary elections due in January 2010. Al-Maliki was excluded from the new coalition, which includes the Tehran-backed Islamic Council of Iraq, the Sadrist current and some anti-US groups.

Major challenges
Apparently, there is a divergence between the Democrats and Republicans as well as among military officials inside the Pentagon as to how to handle the withdrawal from Iraq. The varied reactions to the bombings and their repercussions on the US mission in Iraq are proof of the wide divergence in this regard.

The Pentagon's spokesman said that the latest bombings would have no effect on the US drawdown plans. Yet a distance between such formal announcement -expressing the White House's position - and the view held by US commanders in the field could be traced. General Frank Helmick, US training commander tasked with training Iraqi forces, said that he is frustrated by the pace of training for Iraqi security forces and he's not certain he can complete some of the high-tech training, including for Iraq's Air Force, by the time U.S. troops leave Iraq.

General Helmick's declaration signifies that the timetable for the US withdrawal is all too compressed and training Iraqi forces would be very difficult to achieve within the framework of this tight time table. Thus the Iraqi security situation will be by no means stable by the time the US forces leave Iraq.

Such cautious stand on the part of US commanders in the field was echoed by President Obama who seems fully aware of the fragile security situation in Iraq. In a speech delivered on 17 August -two days before the bombings - Obama said that "Iraqis take control of their destiny, they will be tested and targeted. Those who seek to sow sectarian division will attempt more senseless bombings and more killing of innocents. This we know.... And we will remove all our troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. And for America, the Iraq war will end".

Such announcement implies that the Obama administration had received reports warning that the US withdrawal from security posts was going to be followed by bombings-and these reports proved credible.

Although US military commanders did not oppose the drawdown plans in principle, they warned that such plans should be carried out gradually and in light of the developments in the security situation - or otherwise the US would lose the gains it made there.

According to an opinion poll conducted by the Washington Post on 18 November 2008 - the day the US-Iraqi security agreement was signed- high-ranking US military officials stuck to their position conditioning the withdrawal on the assessment of commanders in the field. They said that despite the signing of the security agreement, the situation on the ground should be the main factor determining when to leave Iraq and in what way. One could conclude from the above that a division is present in the higher decision-making circles over the timetable of the US withdrawal from Iraq. This division is expected to impact - in one way or another- the performance of the American troops there.

The latest bombing aroused the question once more: is the US going to abide by the timetable stipulated by the US-Iraqi security agreement? Or will the Pentagon postpone the move until the Iraqi forces become ready to assume their security responsibilities, which is a precondition of creating an atmosphere of political stability in Iraq?