McCainaanites: We Surrender US Sovereignty to Iraqi Politicians

Sovereignty is the ultimate expression of a nation's independence and autonomy. In constitutional and international law, it is a government's possessing full control over its own affairs, able to make decisions without supervision or veto by others.

Each of our states, for example, surrendered part of its sovereignty over its currency, its relationships with foreign countries, and certain of its laws to the federal government when they formed the United States of America. Those powers, those authorities, were handed to the central government.

Sovereignty can be ceded in several ways. By "contract", as in the formation of the United States and, for that matter, the European Union. It can be lost by default -- for example, our burgeoning national debt, held by countries such as China, limits our ability to act to show our distaste for what China is doing to Tibet because China can easily retaliate by calling us to pay our debt to them.

What keeps China from so acting is their shared interest in a stable financial market. But, the power of China to injure the US financially means we have to walk on eggshells in our dealings with China. That's a loss of sovereignty.

Sovereignty can also be surrendered by fiat. Consider, for example, the McCainaanite logic to continue the Iraq war. Everyone agrees that the US military will not resolve the situation in Iraq. Every side also agrees that the only solution requires reconciliation among the different factions in Iraq that, in turn, depends upon the Iraqi political leaders and their followers.

The McCainaanite position is that the US cannot leave Iraq until the political situation is resolved. Since that resolution depends on the will and actions of Iraqi political leaders, McCain thus surrenders US foreign and military policy (aka, sovereignty) to Iraqi politicians.

And, what motivates Iraqi politicians? US interests? Yeah, sure. They are jockeying for power in Iraq, and different factions use the US either as ally or common enemy as it suits them.

Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md) asked a key question yesterday -- which Iraqi politician has shown they would reconcile by making concessions and leading their faction toward accepting shared power?

Petraeus's answer: "no one". Crocker's answer: "no one".

Hence, the entire premise of the surge, that Iraqi politicians needed "space" to make the concessions to reconcile, was false, phoney and another thread in the fabric of lies perpetrated by Bush-Cheney-McCain to serve nothing but their own vanity.

By surrendering US sovereignty to Iraqi politicians, McCainaanite policy is thus guaranteed to keep us in Iraq, in combat, for at least the duration of his proposed presidency.

Nor does one need a vivid imagination to contemplate what the McCainaanites and radical the rightwing would be screaming if a Democrat had proposed such a policy. They would call it...well, surrender.

And yet here we have a radical right-wing President, and his eager heir-apparent, John McCain, extolling the virtues of their own policy that surrenders, lock-stock-and-barrel, our sovereignty to Iraqi politicians.

And what are the implications of that surrender of sovereignty?

It means that Iraqi politicians, not the US, decide how many more of our men and women shall die, how much longer the occupation shall continue, and how much money the United States treasury shall spend.

Comments

[PaulAbrams]

Small victory----Senator Ted Kennedy asked this question, virtually in terms that it was written, to Secretary Robert Gates and CJC Admiral Mullen. He said, "aren't we being held hostage by Iraqi politicians, and our soldiers are being killed"....to which Mullen responded that it was not unlimited.

Unfortunately, he did not press Mullen....

[S1m0n]

If only it were that simple. The US has wilfully destroyed immense swaths of Iraq and the Iraqi people, all for no good reason. If there were any justice in the world, you'd owed the nation of Iraq enormous reparations.

So being forced to jump to an Iraqi politician's tune has tremendous poetic justice appeal, but it's not that simple. The neo cons simply want to stay in Iraq until they control the oil. They have no intention of leaving; not now and not ever. Any and all rationalizations which start "we have to stay in Iraq until...(pigs fly, etc)" are arguments of convenience and nothing more. The US stays in Iraq because you don't want to leave, period. No argument that begins "of course we want to bring the boys home, but..." is truthful. That's an excuse, not a motive.

[JRandomPoster]

If one accepts the premise that the war in Iraq is about oil, and not about freedom, WMD's, etc - then it makes perfect sense that no achievable goals be suggested for victory. The neocons declared during the 90's that they felt it imperative that we establish a permanent military presence in the middle east in order to secure the area for reasons of national security (read: oil). And if one is going to occupy a country for any extended period, all the great empires from Rome to England knew that divide and conquer worked, and worked well.

So, why should it be any surprise that the factions that we say need to work together before we get out do not, and will never do so while we are there? True, they may never forgive each other their historical differences and the bloodshed of the centuries anyway. Nevertheless, we are certainly doing nothing to heal the differences between them, and by playing them off against each other, probably are just making things worse.

[bmora]

Great argument! Unfortunately, I don't think any of the Democratic candidates are willing to use this in a debate or campaign add.

[TexasDem0]

BushCo foreign policy is limited to the school yard bully method. They want to use force and intimidation for every goal, foreign and domestic. They simply don"t grasp any higher concepts, such as diplomacy. Their systematic destruction of evidence cannot be all inclusive. Some evidence will survive. When it comes to light, BushCo and its GOP Congressional cheerleaders will be held to account for their actions, their cover up efforts, and their disloyalty to the American public and the Constitution they swore to uphold.

[desmirl]

Why should the Iraqi politicians solve their problems as long as we're there to equip, train, and back up their military. We are the enablers, and they won't behave as adults until we stop enabling.