One of the most striking things about the Iraq debate is how little the opinions of Iraqis appear to matter concerning the continuing occupation of their country by U.S. troops, given that a key reason, supposedly, for the U.S. occupation is to promote democracy. You might think a key question would be, is continuing the U.S. military occupation in the interest of the majority of Iraqis (a million of whom have been killed); and a key piece of evidence would be - do a majority of Iraqis think that continuing the occupation is in their interest.
The Washington Post reported Monday:
Seven in 10 Iraqis believe the U.S. troop buildup in Baghdad and Anbar province 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.
Nearly six in 10 Iraqis say attacks on coalition forces are "acceptable," including half of Shiites, which seems like strong evidence that the continuing occupation is unwelcome.
But the Post cites this poll to suggest that Iraqis don't think the surge is working, not to suggest that there is a contradiction between an occupation that is supposed to be in Iraq's interest and the fact that nearly half of Iraqis want U.S. forces to leave immediately.
Last fall, a poll by World Public Opinion found that seven in ten Iraqis wanted U.S. forces to commit to withdraw within a year.
Some may say: it's no surprise that the fact the majority of Iraqis want a timetable for U.S. withdrawal hasn't led to such a timetable. The majority of Americans want such a timetable, and that hasn't led to such a timetable either - so far.
But at least the fact that majority opinion in the U.S. supports such a timetable is a key part of the debate. Reporting on the debate in Congress refers to continuing the "unpopular" occupation - meaning unpopular among Americans, not unpopular among both Americans and Iraqis.
In May, a majority of members of Iraq's parliament signed a draft bill that would require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq, the Washington Post reported.
In June, Iraqi legislators passed a resolution requiring the government to seek parliamentary permission for asking the UN to extend the mandate of U.S. forces in Iraq, which expires December 31.
Given the considerable doubt concerning whether Iraqis want U.S. troops in their country, wouldn't it make sense for Congress to require that the Iraqi parliament positively affirm that U.S. forces should stay, as a condition for the occupation to continue? After all, Congress saw fit to include a benchmark concerning the Iraqi parliament's passage of an oil revenue sharing law (not the oil restructuring law now being considered) - why not a benchmark on parliamentary support of the occupation?
Suppose that, as part of the package of limiting measures that Congress is currently considering, they were to consider the following: in order for the U.S. occupation to continue, the Iraqi parliament must confirm by majority vote on a monthly basis that it wants the U.S. occupation to continue. If any month passes in which the Iraqi parliament does not pass such a measure, in the subsequent month the U.S. must withdraw at least 30,000 troops.
This could have the effect of strengthening the Iraqi political process, because it would give the Iraqi parliament a clear role in shaping the withdrawal of U.S. troops. This could also have the effect of trigging an effective timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. If the Iraqi parliament never passed such a measure, the occupation would be over within 6 months. And yet, proponents of such a measure could not be credibly accused of supporting an "artificial timetable" - for what could be less artificial than a withdrawal schedule shaped directly by the actions of the Iraqi parliament?
Get involved.