Sovereignty In Iraq

Sovereignty (n) -- government free from external control

Is Iraq a truly sovereign state, or is the Maliki government a puppet of America? We may know the answer to this crucial question in a very short time. Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki could show independence from American interests in many ways, some of them decidedly not to President Bush's liking.

The first shot across America's bow was Iraq's announcement that they were buying $100 million in weapons from China. They had tried to "buy American," but American factories couldn't deliver the weapons fast enough. There's a war on, after all, and American weapons are needed for American troops. So Iraq went with China, who could deliver the goods on time. Now, $100 million may sound like a lot, but when it comes to the oceans of dollars of war profits to be made in Iraq, it's truly small potatoes. But it's the principle of the thing that stung some in Washington. Our military-industrial complex likes to be seen as the top-dog weapons-supplier to the world, and losing out like this (to China, especially) is just embarrassing.

Then there is the fact of Maliki's civil relations with Iran; which are a lot warmer than America's own relations with Iran. But what is Maliki realistically supposed to do? Ignore the larger country next door with which Iraq shares a huge border? Would America likely ignore Canada or Mexico in this fashion, or do we regularly sit down and talk with them?

But Maliki's diplomacy with Iran makes the U.S. very nervous. If the rumors are true and we start another war (with Iran), which side will Maliki back? Maliki doesn't want a war with Iran, he's got enough problems of his own.

But the real power struggle between Maliki wanting to take Iraq in an independent direction, and America's desire to pull the strings in Iraq is coming down to the acid test of what happens to Blackwater. The recent shooting incident with Blackwater is still mostly in the news in America, but we've kind of moved on to fresher tragedies (the American news-watching audience has the attention span of a hyperactive bumblebee). But in Iraq, they haven't forgotten it. This one incident has become a test case (within Iraq) for Iraq's own government to do what is best for Iraq's people -- namely, chuck Blackwater out of the country.

On a larger scale, my guess is that the first piece of "major legislation" to pass the Iraqi parliament is going to be rescinding Coalition Provisional Authority Order 17 which exempts private security firms from Iraqi law, and which was issued the day before we officially turned over sovereignty to the Iraqis.

Imagine that -- the first important thing the Iraqi government may be able to agree upon is that American security firms need to be held accountable to the Iraqi rule of law; since the Americans have essentially left these people accountable to no law whatsoever. Talk about the student teaching the teacher!

And, if America as a country (and as a government) meant it when we said "Iraq is a sovereign state," then we are just going to have to start playing by their rules. That's what sovereignty is all about, after all -- having control over what happens within your country.

The next subject the Iraq parliament may decide to tackle (after scoring big domestic political points among the Iraqi populace by kicking Blackwater out) may be even more serious -- forcing America to negotiate a "Status of Forces Agreement" (SOFA) with them.

[OK, I have to admit, that's a pretty silly acronym for even the Pentagon to come up with.]

A SOFA is an agreement between a host nation and another nation (us, in this case) that covers forces based within the host nation. We have been operating in Iraq without a SOFA from the new Iraqi government so far... but now Bush is openly talking about staying in Iraq as long as we've been in South Korea... and even the top three Democratic presidential candidates won't say all our forces will be out -- even by the year 2013 -- so it seems like a sensible time to start talking about a SOFA. But nobody wants to talk about it. Because that would mean admitting to the American public that we intend to actually use those enormous multi-zillion-dollar "Forward Operating Bases" that we've built in Iraq -- for the foreseeable future. And in an election year, nobody wants to admit this -- not Bush, not Republicans, and definitely not Democrats.

But a SOFA may be forced upon us by the Iraqi government. A SOFA would not just cover American bases in Iraq, it would mainly cover legal jurisdictional issues -- when soldiers would be held accountable under Iraqi law, and when they would be held accountable by American law. So you can see why -- if the Iraq government forces new rules upon the security contractors -- this would be the logical next step for them to take.

Which, undoubtedly, Bush isn't going to be very happy about. But again, that's what sovereignty is all about -- the other country being able to do what they want, not what we want.

The Iraqis tried to get America's attention last week, but almost nobody noticed. They came out and openly admitted that political reconciliation in Iraq is just not going to happen. Every faction in Iraq correctly sees the current situation as a power struggle, not as a road to conciliation (which, after all, means sharing power). They're more interested in consolidating the power they already have, and continuing the struggle for more.

This is momentous news, but America greeted it with a collective yawn. Remember, the "surge" was not a strategy, it was a tactic. This tactic was supposed to achieve a goal (lessening violence, improving security), which was supposed to provide "breathing space" for the strategic goal (Iraqi political reconciliation) to take place. In other words, whether the tactic has been successful or not is now a moot point. Because the overall strategy has been rejected by the political leaders in Iraq.

Nobody knows what this means, and the shocking thing is: nobody is even talking about it. What is going to happen (for instance) if al-Sadr's militia takes over the port of Basra and the surrounding oil fields? Are we going to allow one militia to control the flow of oil out of Iraq? What happens if Maliki endorses such a situation? This is just one example of the kind of thing we could be facing very soon in Iraq -- Shi'ites taking control of sectors of Iraq in a power struggle. It is by no means the only scenario possible, if such a power struggle comes nakedly out in the open.

What are we going to do if Maliki (or whichever cabinet minister) announces that there will now be a religious test for the police and army -- and only Shi'ites can join? Maliki is already seriously upset at America for making friends with the Sunnis in al-Anbar, and encouraging them to join Iraq's armed forces. So what happens if Maliki just bans them from serving?

This is, again, sovereignty. Short of overthrowing Maliki's government by force or by stealth, the United States can't really legally do anything if Maliki decides to take Iraq in a direction we don't particularly want them to go in.

The Blackwater incident was just what made the pot boil over -- it has been simmering and bubbling for a long time now. Maliki has to prove to the average Iraqi-on-the-street that he is running Iraq independently from George Bush's wishes. The Blackwater case gives him a perfect opportunity to do so. If Maliki backs down (he has already moved the goalposts back -- as he now wants Blackwater out "in six months"), he will have proven to his fellow countrymen that not even their own safety is more important to him than being a pawn of America (which does not bode well for his future political prospects).

But if Maliki does not back down, he may actually take the first few steps on the road to true sovereignty. Where that road will lead him (and Iraq) remains to be seen. Since this is what we keep saying we want (an independent Iraq), it will be interesting to see what America's reaction to such fledgling steps towards a truly sovereign Iraqi government will be.

The word "sovereignty" has as its base "sovereign" -- a king or other single ruler of a country. The Queen of England, for instance, does not stand when her national anthem is played, because she literally is the state (she does not salute the anthem because she herself is being honored). A sovereign ruler embodies the nation itself. Iraq had that under the dictatorship (and personality cult) of Saddam Hussein. That era is over. But even though the state of Iraq is no longer represented by one man, the concept of Iraqi sovereignty did not go away with Saddam. What remains to be seen is how Maliki will grasp the reins of this awesome power, and where he will take the country of Iraq after taking control. And that's something that nobody (except Maliki) can predict accurately.

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

 

Comments

[RumiSouth]

I'm glad you brought up the long-term planning in those bases, Chris. We are in Iraq for the long haul, whether we like it or not, because that has been the plan all along.

And what will soldiers call this vast network of security perimeters and bases? My suspicion is that years from now they'll call it "Babylon," and crack jokes about "our last, best hope for peace."

(Yes, that's a Babylon-5 reference for all you sci-fi lovers out there.)

http://southofstrange.blogspot.com/2007/09/babylon.html

[SamThornton]

If it has occurred to you that the current scene in Washington, D.C. eerily resembles every bad late-night movie you've ever seen about the corrupt royal courts of Europe in the 18th century, you may have tripped over a profound truth.

Merely change a few titles -- substitute "king" for president, "prince" or "princess" for Congress critter, "escort" for courtesan, and "flunky" for legislative assistant -- et voila! We have the 18th century court of King Louis the XVI and Marie Antoinette, only live and in color.

Like King Louis, George Bush believes he rules by divine right; like King Louis, George Bush believes his will is absolute; like King Louis, George Bush rewards his friends from state coffers and hounds his enemies with the tools of the state. Is not Lady Bush at least as clueless as her counterpart, Marie? Children and health insurance? Let them eat cake.

Then there are the Congress critters as Princes and Princesses. Do they not each rule over a feifdom, ensuring their serfs are kept confused, ignorant and cheaply paid, remain uncomplaining when paying tribute to the king and eager to offer their low-born children for service in the king's foreign adventures? Is a Prince's incumbency virtually unchallengeable, except for those odd, toe-tapping moments? Does a commoner dare speak to them without risking choke holds and tasering? And do our modern royals accede to the king's every whim, or not?

The only monkey wrench in this marvelous machinery of state is that dratted opinion poll showing only 11 percent of the riff-raff still have awe for the royals. Sadly, the rest of us think they all suck.

And, at the other end of the bell curve from that still loyal 11 percent, lies the really pissed off 11 percent who are now likely in their workshops, busily sharpening stakes, fashioning torches, and dusting off pitchforks, preparing for the day when the plans for Le Guillotine arrives from The Guillotine Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark, http://www.metaphor.dk/guillotine/Pages/drawing1792.html ($38 US).

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

SamThornton

Actually, I have noticed the resemblance to Louis XVI previously:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/whose-head-will-roll-next_b_43422.html

Enjoy!

-CW

[snaggster]

"Is Iraq a truly sovereign state, or is the Maliki government a puppet of America? We may know the answer to this crucial question in a very short time."

The answer to part A of your question is NO. The answer to part B of your question is YES. We knew the answer yesterday.

[A1CW]

staying the course...

Dateline IRAQ - 10 Oct 07,
...the 1,623rd day (over FOUR YEARS ago)
since the declaration of "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq.

(ONE British soldier KILLED the week ending 22 Sep 07
bringing the United Kingdom's total to 170)

ONE MORE AMERICAN MILITARY
KILLED OVERNIGHT BRINGING
THE UNITED STATES TOTAL TO...

3,818- KILLED

At Least 28,093- WOUNDED

Sadly, 95% of the US Dead & Wounded
(that's 3,626 Dead & 26,688 Wounded)
occurred since the Bush/Cheney "Mission Accomplished", "We will be greeted as Liberators", "End of Major Combat Operations", "Bring 'em on",
“We’re Kickin’ Ass”
statements.


There is growing agreement this war has become Ruinous- Militarily, Fiscally, Politically and Morally and that as in Vietnam, it is no longer a question of IF we withdraw in disgrace, but When. How many more young Americans will have to die to save face for the chicken hawks* who dreamt up this wholly unnecessary elective war?

*chick-en hawk - n.- A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm isn't dimmed by personal experience with war; most empathically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person's youth.

synonyms~ see also bush brothers, cheney, rove, libby, snow, wolfowitz, rice, ashcroft, feith, perle, abrams, cox, kyl, shelby, weber, mcconnell, gingrich, lott, hassert, delay, santorum, frist, blunt, pataki, gramm, giuliani, romney, thompson, leiberman, limbaugh, o'rielly, will, buchanan, hannity, bennett, kristol, et al, etc...


"It is those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded, who cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell."
William Tecumseh Sherman 1879

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity."
Dwight David Eisenhower 1946

How might bush’s war feelings differed had he actually served during his generation's war instead of having meticulously avoided combat, flying air cover for the Alamo.

I too often find the ones talkin' the Toughest Talk are generally those who never saw combat. Being shot at focuses the mind wonderfully.

[Purple Girl]

They never had any intentions of allowing the iraqis to be independent. Iraq is just Bushco's foot in the Middle Eastern Door ( we seem to be standing between the Saudi's & Iran ultimate fight ( of course we're working for the Saudis benefit which will trickle down to the profiteers like DICK &fiends.)They've sold our economic power to China and that of our childrens - labor futures on the world market up for sale (might as well give it the acronym USLM for the DOW) and our souls to the Sheiks.Iraqi's & US are merely the pawns in this sick game of chess.