Iraq Wants the US to Leave
Despite the ongoing debate in the US over continued occupation in Iraq, one voice that is constantly underreported is that of the Iraqi people. Back in May of 2007, a majority of the Iraqi parliament “signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal . . . ,” timetables the US has been loathe to entertain. The petition, which made parliamentary approval mandatory for continued occupation was passed a month later in June. Apparently, the parliament made this move because they were irritated that President Bush and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki have been extending the legality of the occupation of Iraq in the UN without any Iraqi legislative input.
Yes, strangely, the US seeks a resolution every year in the UN to “extend the legality” of the occupation. Even though the UN has no authority over US military actions, our government pretends it does - risking further erosion of our sovereignty, but I digress.
The Iraqi parliament has made it a violation of the constitution for the Prime Minister to seek extension of the occupation without first being approved in the Iraqi legislature. Nevertheless, on December 18,
the George W Bush administration and the Iraqi government [unelected cabinet officials] led by US-installed Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki pushed a resolution through the UN Security Council to extend by another year the legal cover for foreign troops to operate in Iraq. The move [] violated both the Iraqi constitution and the resolution passed earlier this year by the Iraqi Parliament.
Raed Jarrar, Iraq consultant at the Public Policy Office of the American Friends Service Committee in Washington, notes that
Bypassing the Iraqi Parliament and continuing to undermine the Iraqi political process will push more Iraqis to choose armed resistance instead of political non-violent resistance . . . The US role in supporting the unpopular and unelected Iraqi cabinet will increase violence and undermine Iraqis’ plans to achieve national reconciliation. . . . The best way to support reconciliation in Iraq is to stop supporting a minority of Iraqi separatists against the majority of Iraqi nationalists.
The irony is that the we had to violate our own Constitution to initiate the invasion by doing so without a congressional declaration of war, and we must continue the occupation by violating the Iraqi constitution. And Jarrar seems to have a point, if public opinion amongst Iraqis is any indication. The Washington Post reported in September that
Seven in 10 Iraqis believe the U.S. troop buildup in Baghdad and Anbar province [aka. “the surge”] has made security worse in those areas and nearly half want coalition forces to leave immediately, according to a new poll conducted by ABC News, the BBC and the Japanese broadcaster NHK.
What’s worse, this same poll indicated that 6 in 10 Iraqi’s feel that attacks on coalition forces in Iraq are “acceptable.”
Whatever role US forces in Iraq once played, it’s increasingly apparent that the occupation is becoming nothing more than an obstacle to the people of Iraq coming to a self-determination as to how they should be governed. Nevertheless, the occupation trudges onward in the absurd goal of establishing a permanent presence like that of South Korea, Germany, Japan, et al.
In May 2007, Tony Snow, former spokesman for President Bush, announced that Bush would like to see a lengthy US troop presence in Iraq as in South Korea, where the US has had thousands of troops for 50 years. “The Korean model is one in which the United States provides a security presence, but you’ve had the development of a successful democracy in South Korea over a period of years, and, therefore, the United States is there as a force of stability,” Snow told reporters.
Even though the Bush administration cannot identify a benefit to growing an already financially and politically burdensome empire, good money continues to be thrown after bad. The idea has even appeared on the campaign trail, with John McCain exclaiming rather ardently that
. . . he would be fine with keeping troops in Iraq for decades as long as they weren’t being harmed, similar to the arrangements that exist in South Korea, Japan and other countries. “A thousand years. A million years. Ten million years,” McCain said. “It depends on the arrangement we have with the Iraqi government.”
Apparently, the “arrangement” needed with the Iraqi government is one where the US is able to either control or ignore it.
(5, 2 votes)
Loading ...Related Posts
- Who Said It?
- Iraqi People Being Scammed Into Becoming US Colony
- McCain: Occupy Iraq for “Ten Million Years”
- Hit Him Again One-Week Hiatus
- Oklahoma Wins HitHimAgain Lamest License Plate Award
The failure of the political establishment and the American people to seize upon this as a methodology for extricating ourselves from Iraq surely betrays not only our real purpose but also how we view others. We view the Iraqis and by extension their kinsmen, as the Romans viewed the Germanic tribes prior to 9 AD. The only important question is not who is the modern Arminius but who is our Varus?
I’ve got to say, you’re going pretty old-school on the historical analogues. As a general matter, and an author’s postscript, it’s irritating to have to discuss subjects such as “polls amongst Iraqis” and “the Iraqi constitution” as though they should be intensely important to the policies of our own government. It is only by our own choices that they have become so. I would imagine that my writing this article is a bit like being forced to watch and comment on a midday televised soap opera - how distracted our government has become!
All are distracted. Varus at least fell on his sword. We are numb to the blade.