U.S. Troops To Stay in Iraq Until 2012?

In yet another cynical ploy from the good offices of the George W. Bush Administration we are now told that after "tough" negotiations the Iraqi Parliament has approved a December 31, 2011 exit date for American combat troops. How any government under foreign occupation can "declare" anything is anybody's guess. Despite the enthusiasm for the deal by Thomas Friedman of the New York Times and others who supported the 2003 invasion, even assuming the Shia government of Prime Minister Nouri Kamal al-Maliki means business in wanting American troops out of the country, the so-called timetable agreement raises more questions than it answers.

First, the agreement should state honestly that American combat troops would remain in Iraq until 2012. Using the December 31, 2011 date as the deadline is nothing but a cheap deception like selling a plasma screen TV for $999.99.

Second, the United States was not "invited" into Iraq by any Iraqi government, puppet or otherwise, so the occupation remains essentially unilateral in nature. It will therefore require unilateral action to end it. Iraq's government has nothing to say to the United States about when and how American combat troops are disengaged. The country has been under occupation for over five years, the regime is corrupt at every level, and it lacks legitimacy both abroad and with its own people. The United Nations "mandate" came after the U.S. had intervened. There is no "leader" in Iraq, or "parliament," that can tell the American people they must continue to spend $12 billion each month on Iraq's "security" until 2012. It was an American decision to go into Iraq. It will be an American decision to get out of Iraq. In the current context, the desires and demands of the fractured and dependent regime inside Baghdad's "Green Zone" matter little.

Third, eventually the Iraqis are going to have a resurgence of violence akin to a civil war and there is nothing American troops or the Iraqi parliament can do about it. With the plummeting price of oil due to the global economic depression new pressures will mount on the control of the only viable resource in the country. None of the underlying political conflicts between the factions and sects have been resolved. The deep political divisions lurk just beneath the surface and they have been only papered over by the presence of 140,000 American troops and about 100,000 private contractors. The absence of those troops will create power vacuums in some areas and things will get messy. In November 2008, what the Iraqi parliament says it wants is immaterial. Nothing the United States does can stop the unfolding of Iraq's own history. Ultimately, the Iraqi people will determine their country's destiny and no action by the Americans or Europeans can change this simple fact.

Fourth, most Americans now believe it was a trillion dollar mistake to go into Iraq in the first place. They are through with this war and occupation that was sold to them on false pretenses by the most unpopular president in our history. Only Bush's arrogance and ignorance have kept Americans dying in Iraq since the midterm elections of 2006 when the American people sent the clear message they want out of Iraq. The corrupt members of the Iraqi parliament are not the "deciders" about whether the U.S. continues to throw away lives and money to maintain an imperial illusion. The American people have already turned against this war and that fact should matter far more in Washington than anything coming out of Baghdad.

Fifth, part of the agreement reads like bad satire. The Iraqi parliament apparently believes that the U.S. military forces in Iraq are going to be answerable and accountable to the Iraqi government. The agreement demands that the U.S. seek approval from the Iraqi government before it conducts combat operations, and that it stand down if not approved; it even calls for prosecuting Americans who commit "grave premeditated felonies" in Iraq. Let me state this as clearly as I can: THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN! After thirty-plus years of hearing the Right Wing in America screaming about how U.S. "sovereignty" is sacrificed if American troops are ever under the "blue helmet" command of the United Nations -- Now we're going to accept what amounts to American soldiers taking orders from Arab military officers who are dependent on American taxpayer money for their survival? That's not only a breach of the "command structure" of the American military, which is sure to enrage the Bill Kristols and the John Boltons, but it is a stupid move inside Iraq because it will only mean that various Iraqi factions will manipulate American combat missions for their own political benefit.

Sixth, since the Iraqi "status of forces agreement" with the United States will not be "ratified" by the U.S. Senate it is not a binding "treaty" under U.S. law. When Barack Obama is sworn in as president on January 20th his administration will not be bound by it. His role as Commander-in-Chief means he has the power -- call it "flexibility" -- to remove U.S. combat troops no matter what the Iraqi government says. Besides, given the precedents set over the past eight years, all President Obama might choose to do is issue a "signing statement" or "unsign" the agreement. Case closed. But he doesn't even have to do that -- He'll have the power to get us out of Iraq the moment he's sworn in.

Finally, the Iraqi parliament's "agreement" calls for tens of thousands of American troops to remain in Iraq indefinitely to play "support" roles and "train" the Iraqi security services and military. The American troops will be, in effect, trying to prop up a pliable pro-U.S. regime in Baghdad. That is not an agreement that guarantees Iraq's sovereignty. As long as U.S. soldiers are garrisoned in Iraq they will have to choose sides among the competing factions. (Obama should review this bad idea.) Their presence will continue to distort Iraqi internal politics and fuel nationalist resistance and terrorism. The continued footprint of U.S. military personnel, even as "advisers," will be a constant reminder to Iraqis of the excesses of the occupation, their humiliation at the hands of foreigners, and that their security services are penetrated by both the CIA and the Mossad. It will be an enduring affront to their sovereignty.

The criticisms outlined above raise the simple question: What exactly does the Iraqi parliament's troop withdrawal agreement change in the fundamental relationship between Iraq and the United States? The Answer is: Nothing.

Which brings me to Thomas Friedman who wrote in yesterday's New York Times, yet another rancid opinion piece on the Iraq occupation titled "Obama's Iraq Inheritance." In it Friedman still insists on measuring "progress" in Iraq in "Friedman Units": "There is now, for the first time, a chance -- still only a chance -- that a reasonably stable democratizing government, though no doubt corrupt in places, can take root in the Iraqi political space." Friedman has been saying the same thing for over five years now: "Success" in Iraq is just "six months" away. He continues to see the transformative effects of the 2003 invasion. "The most important reason for the Iraq war," Friedman writes, was Bush and Cheney's noble goal of "promoting a different politics in the Arab-Muslim world." Here Friedman offers Times readers nothing but rehashed neo-conservative rubbish. The individuals and corporations profiting from the war and occupation never gave a damn about "promoting a different politics in the Arab-Muslim world."

Friedman views the Iraqi parliament's agreement as a sign that a "decent outcome" is within our grasp -- Maybe just a "Friedman Unit" or two away? He insists American troops will leave Iraq because we are "now committed to do so by treaty." But the United States Senate has not ratified any new "treaty" with Iraq.

Friedman twice in the piece refers to the country of Iraq as "geopolitical space." I doubt if the Iraqi people view their nation as "geopolitical space," which points to the crux of Friedman's problem whenever he puts pen to paper on Iraq: 1). He sees the Arab world through the eyes of a neo-colonialist; 2). He has internalized the neo-con pipedream that the U.S. military occupation will somehow "build progressive politics and rule of law in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world"; and 3). He doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.

Comments

[ReHoover51]

why are we in iraq?
what have we done for iraq?
why are we staying iraq?
it will take 18months to get our crap outa there ... maybe longer if we decide to take all the weapons!

[ThePeacemakers]

Re: #5 of the "cliff notes" of the agreement:

That's why this is the way out, maybe sooner than later. They all say it depends on "Conditions on the ground" as determined by generals in charge, well, these are the conditions that will make a military want to pack up sooner rather than later.

I can see end of 2009 or early 2010 - after the military and contractors are under Iraq law for a while and after an incident or two - this will be the reason to leave early. Plus, Bush Admin is hung up on appearing "defeated". This deal is about saying "yeah, we won" (please, agree with these babies everyonge, it's real important for them to be "right" rather than "right") and leaving the exit strategy to another administration. That was the exit plan all along - let another administration deal with that and clean up the mess. That's the quality of character of the Bush Admin at work.

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

HuffPost's Pick

Great comments. Thank you. Tonight around 6:00 pm I will be on Al Jazeera English television discussing my analysis of the Obama national security team.

[LeonBNJ]

The only real reason to keep the continuing American occupation of Iraq is to protect the oil for us and our allies. We know as soon as our troop levels get below a certain level, the inevitable civil war, mainly over the oil fields will break out. But we can't afford to be there any longer either or much longer than early 2011. Our continued occupation also continues 60+years of British/American controlled Cold War policies to keep these areas stable, in artificialy structured territories that ignore religious and cultural lines and our proping up leaders favorable to us, but not to some parts or cultural/tribal groups that leads to the al-Queda style terror against the west.

[MCpiano]

Watch as Obama faces reality now, and continues Bush's policies in Iraq.

[JulieSA]

This SOFA is a done deal. It's clear that you hope Iraq collapses and they start killing each other again, but that won't happen unless Pres. Obama messes up. And he won't. He's too smart to screw up what's working. We'll probably have residual troops there for years.

This is how it will be, and you may as well accept it.

[sticksnstones]

Oh, my dear Julie ..... they've been at killing each other since 700 AD.

[CitizenLegislatorCC]

TRUTH on the pages of HuffingtonPost. Thank You, Joseph Palermo.

Though I doubt there will be much more "civil war" after we decamp from Iraq.

The real work that needs doing by America is right here at home in the United States Congress. We have a Constitutionally-invalid "war policy" asserted by the Executive Branch, which it has been allowed to appropriate from our CONGRESS, which alone holds plenary power under our Constitution to decide where to wage war (or violence) on behalf of this nation.

Yet Barack Obama (and Biden and Clinton, et al) and those who now worshipfully follow him are endorsing a continuation of that Constitutionally-invalid seizure of power from the Congress, without protest or even comment. The private-agenda-serving media, and the representatives of the people from whom that power has been seized likewise stand silent.

This extremely dangerous overreach now extends to what is effectively a treaty (the SOFA with Iraq) - in fact if not in name - which no one in our Senate is DEMANDING be submitted for ratification before it takes effect next month. This is simply open contempt for Constitutional government in America, expressed by both political parties, who together have conspired to empower a rogue presidency and enfeeble the Congress at democracy's expense.

If we wish to remain a self-governing Republic with a limited, constrained presidency (instead of a hopefully-benevolent Czar), we must insist on a return to the rule of law under our Constitution, and soon.

[GregJL]

The Congress decides WHERE and WHEN to wage war. The President, as Commander in Chief, decides HOW to wage that war, and makes requests for the appropriate funding to Congress, which controls the money for waging the war.

So where is the UPCOMING Obama administration endorsing this? To which statements by Brack Obama are you referring that would lead you to believe he is endorsing continuing the "Decider" policy?

[CitizenLegislatorCC]

Most recently, from Obama's comments in the question and answer session of his 'national security' news conference this morning. The unilateral tenor of which is splashed all over the top of this blog. Obama never refers to Congress as a decision maker - never mind THE decision maker - concerning the future of our occupation of/violence on Iraq. [Which was unleashed in the first place by the president after the long-since-mooted 'authorization to use military force' probably unConstitutionally DELEGATED to Bush Congress's responsibililty to declare (or not) war or force on Iraq.] Instead Obama cited the SOFA today as something that 'points in the right direction' with no reference at all to its clearly lawless status under our own Constitution if unratified by the Senate.

Obama follows assiduously - and has throughout his campaign - the lead of the presidency-exalting media, which treats Congress as a mere subcommittee of the Executive Branch that need only be consulted when funding is at stake. This follows as well in most of the domestic arena, where Obama and the media (and Democratic Party leaders) appear to agree that Obama and his advisors will write most of any new legislation and then submit it for rubberstamping by the subcommittee Congress. [Watch the generation of the upcoming stimulus package to see that process play out - BEFORE Obama officially takes office - and to see how few Members of Congress get any say in the details of the legislation through regular order legislating.]

[brodon]

Correct if I'm wrong but. . . . .did not PE Obama pledge to begin withdrawing troops immediately??

[1will]

He had his fingers crossed.

[GregJL]

Your point is? Obama is not sworn in yet, so he can't really be withdrawing troops yet, right? So what point in asking a month and a half before his inauguration whether he is going to do something? We'll find out if it's a broken promise once he has a chance to either keep or break it.

[snesich]

Good piece, Joseph. You've summarized Friedman very well, as usual.

We have to remember that in many ways, Friedman is trying to cover his butt with all of this. Like Bush and Cheney and many, many others, Friedman was part and parcel of those urging America to support this invasion and occupation of Iraq. And year after year after year after awful year, Friedman kept finding "new, encouraging signs" in Iraq, to pathetically try and justify the heinous role in played in making this come about.

Friedman would regain a lot of respect and credibility by simply saying, "I was wrong. I should have never supported this. It has been a disaster and the best thing that can happen at this point is for the United States to disengage, as quickly and completely as possible---and in no event should it be longer than 16 months from January."

Friedman, like Bush, continues to fantasize about a "democratic, free Iraq" that will somehow make him look better and provide him with a "I was right all along" talking point he can take to his grave.

It won't wash, Tom. Much better to stand up straight and admit you participated in a horrific fiasco that has cost thousands of lives and billions of taxpayer dollars and ask for forgiveness, rather than continue to recite the same old nonsense.

Americans have moved on from the occupation in Iraq. They've woken up and smelled the coffee. I suggest you do the same.

[Seldon]

This is why I get a little impatient with Americans on both sides of the Iraq war position. Whether you were for or against going into Iraq in the first place, neither side seems to give a damn about Iraqi sovereignty.

Americans will leave Iraq when the Iraqis say the Americans should leave (whether it is wise to do so doesn't matter). Anything else is illegal. Clear?

You pull out to early, and it is criminal negligence and a breach of the implicit agreement as a occupier/liberator. You overstay your welcome and you are colonialist.

The point is to nurture a sovereign government to the point where they can freely decide when your presence is no longer required. Yes it is fragile, yes it is hard but this is the only way to do it.

Blowing off the government they have as being corrupt and doing whatever you want anyway will kill whatever remote chance there ever was of getting a half decent outcome from this sorry debacle.

[spinmas]

Excellent and informative article, I hope Obama and his people read it and stand advised.....

[PaHairO]

The thinly disguised attempts at revisionist history and urgent rebranding by the authors of this colossal boondoggle are a sad and unsurprising commentary on the purported free speech democracy that the USA may once have been - but certainly isn't anymore.

The Iraqi "government" is a pathetic joke.

Friedman's twisting in the wind is fun to watch.

Every last one of these disgusting criminal enablers should be put on trial for fraud, treason, and obstruction of justice.

[Vasey]

The incoming Commander in Chief can clarify any policy he inherits. He can draw down any troop presence to levels he believes is appropriate. Lets face it. Until Washington comes clean on Iraq any worldwide diplomatic improvement will be seriously hindered and tainted.

[FullChat]

The Iraq Experience will, by definition, end ugly.

The major political issues have not been addressed by the Iraqi parliament. The law allowing Baathists (the guys who ran everything under Saddam, like power plants, sewage, and OK, torture facilities :-) back to work has not been successful, and revenue sharing has yet to be addressed. The police and army are almost entirely Shia. Appointments are made much like those of the Bush administration - politics before competence.

For internal wars, you have the Shia-Shia in the south, Sunni-Shia in the west, Turk-Anybody in the North. Oh, and Everybody-Everybody in Baghdad. The Sunnis are being paid by the US to rearm and regroup. What happens when the payments stop?

Iraq will not be able to truly defend itself against external aggression (and keep in mind that they have a bad history with some of their neighbors...) for at least a decade. The do not currently have any heavy weapons, air force, or navy. The Iranian air force is not too impressive to US forces, but it will be very impressive to Iraq ...

And this has all been inevitable since the days when we disbanded the army and, with de-Baathification, the government. The withdrawal of US troops will not affect the quantity of the internal Iraqi bloodshed, but simply the timing of it - and the quantity of the American bloodshed.

It will end ugly, and there is nothing we can do about it.

[K-Dog76]

Palermo,

If Obama didn't intend on staying in Iraq, he wouldn't have picked his staff the way he did. Campaign promise number 1, broken.

Whine all you want about how Malikis government isn't real or the treaty isn't real. The troops on the ground ARE real. And they'll be there through Obama's first term.

[Hawka]

He picked a competent and diverse staff that has all basically been in a agreement on the need to withdraw from Iraq?

[johnie2xs]

"And they''l be there through Obama's first term"

And who the hell is going to pay for that, YOU?

[GregJL]

"Campaign promise number 1, broken."

Really? The promise was to begin withdrawing our troops and hopefully have them all out within sixteen months. Where was his promise to pick who YOU think should be his staff?