In an exercise of silent complicity, the newly un-elected governing council readily and  enthusiastically gave the nod to the new beacon of sovereignty. Un-elected and clearly void of artistic ability, the Iraqi governing council were once again left to abuse their position as appointed interim administrators and unilaterally passed a general decree, reminiscent of the way decisions have taken shape for years in this part of the world.

The decision taken to change the flag, in fact, is problematic on many levels, none of which come as a surprise, however. Firstly, the concept of flag change should be introduced as a result of a natural and substantial transition into democracy. But to unveil the flag as if it were a new logo for the National Rifle Association compromises the entire process of restoration and rebuilding and reasserts its hijack by American interests.

Secondly, the symbolism/propaganda intended by the flag is yet another indicator of America's persistence to overlook the cultural and national makeup of the country. Policy makers in the United States have their eyes set on making changes in Iraq that go beyond selecting who does the killing in the land between two rivers. Re-energized by their success in backhanding international diplomacy out of the way to commit a ludicrous yet dangerously successful crime against humanity, it interests me how supporters of the war are now surprised at America's decision to paint the flag of Iraq.

It is becoming more and more clear that the concept of imposing democracy is a failing aspiration of Woflowitzism. And in the case of Iraq, the fact that the Americans were the reason behind the oppression and violence handed out by Saddam Hussein against Iraqis, makes the prospect of them manufacturing freedom even more farcical. Furthermore, the chain events that have taken place since the "end of major military operations" clearly indicate that decisions that are being made in Iraq are done behind closed doors, exclusive to even perhaps the governing council. Therefore, it can be said that the way in which Americans have administered their occupation has in fact worked against the proliferation of civil rights in the country.

Although discussing the colors of the flag gives legitimacy to this government's existence, one cannot pass the opportunity to ridicule the fact that American actions  in Iraq are blinded by their obsession to squash any remnants of an Arabic identity in the cities enclosed within their Iraqi mandate. First, the Americans ensured the lack of representation for Iraqi Arabs in the governing council by cutting the pieces of the pie based on sectarian Islam, a way of thinking to which many Iraqis don’t subscribe to, as opposed to allotting power to a sector that represents the largest slice of all: Iraqi Arabs.

Sky blue crescents are about as Arabic as Israeli settlements in the West Bank. And with regards to the yellow stripe representing Kurds, such a gesture would only be fair and viable if all the minorities had their colors etched onto the design. In my opinion the act of replacing the flag should be more incorporated into Bush & Sons Incorporated’s vision. Companies and corporations, many of whom personally outfitted the destruction of Iraqi civil society over several decades, should be allowed to bid on having their logos represented in the flag.

The charade of destruction continues, with the Americans using their power advantage to the fullest. Iraqis, very far from self governance, are supposed to celebrate a flag that doesn’t belong to them.

Predictably illogical.