While most observers are focused on the U.S. Congress as it continues to issue new rubber stamps to legitimize Bush's permanent designs on Iraq, nationalists in the Iraqi parliament -- now representing a majority of the body -- continue to make progress toward bringing an end to their country's occupation.
The parliament today passed a binding resolution that will guarantee lawmakers an opportunity to block the extension of the U.N. mandate under which coalition troops now remain in Iraq when it comes up for renewal in December. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose cabinet is dominated by Iraqi separatists, may veto the measure.
The law requires the parliament's approval of any future extensions of the mandate, which have previously been made by Iraq's prime minister. It is an enormous development; lawmakers reached in Baghdad today said that they do in fact plan on blocking the extension of the coalition's mandate when it comes up for renewal six months from now.
Reached today by phone in Baghdad, Nassar al Rubaie, the head of Al-Sadr bloc in Iraq's Council of Representatives, said, "This new binding resolution will prevent the government from renewing the U.N. mandate without the parliament's permission. They'll need to come back to us by the end of the year, and we will definitely refuse to extend the U.N. mandate without conditions." Rubaie added: "There will be no such a thing as a blank check for renewing the U.N. mandate anymore, any renewal will be attached to a timetable for a complete withdrawal."
Without the cover of the U.N. mandate, the continued presence of coalition troops in Iraq would become, in law as in fact, an armed occupation, at which point it would no longer be politically tenable to support it. While polls show that most Iraqis consider U.S. forces to be occupiers rather than liberators or peacekeepers -- 92 percent of respondents said as much in a 2004 survey by the Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society Studies -- the U.N. mandate confers an aura of legitimacy on the continuing presence of foreign troops on Iraq's streets, even four years after the fall of Saddam Hussein.
Read the rest of the article.
President Bush said two weeks a go that if they wanted us out, he would leave. My guess is he won't, and the Democrats will continue to provide him the resources and authority he needs as long as they get their pork.
Ain't politics fun?
22 comments:
It's because they're not 'over there' to install a democratic government (or to look for the fabelled WMD - remember them?).
They're there for the oil.
Great post and analysis Scott. Sounds like another major event has failed to make the news. Meanwhile, Turkish troops have made an incursion into Northern Iraq and U.S. covert action against Iran is already underway. Looks like our troops better get used to sand in their boots.
"For might makes right,
And till they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
Till somebody we like can be elected."
Tom Lehrer, "Send the Marines" 1965
So nearly 40 years later, the same song can be applied...
So we went there to "give" them democracy. Now they've democratically decided they want us gone, and you're right, we probably won't. Doesn't that, regardless of all the other bungling, make the whole thing a farce?
Yeah. Would be nice if Bush keeps his word for once.
By the way, our man (Ron Paul) isn't doing too well in the polls. I'm almost tempted to register Republican to vote for him in the primaries.
YEESSSS, DO IT!! We are fo' sure!
Leaving is not the answer, sticking it out with international support is, otherwise the mess that the US/UK axis started under false pretences will be finished by the religious breakdown of a once secular nation into a disturbing force in the Middle East.
Well... we have to leave eventually.... It's just a matter of when.
The question remains, however, what will happen *after* we leave? If we can stabilise things before we bug out there might be a reasonable hope that things remain stable - however, that might take some considerable time. Are we willing to have our troops in country for another decade (or longer)...? Just how much is a stable Iraq worth? Is it even possible at this stage to put a broken country back together again?
CK, if we went in for oil it sure hasn't worked.
Godwhacker, between sanctions and military intimidation we're already at war with Iran. They just haven't fought back yet.
Laura, good points.
Slayer, I'm changing to vote for him. I read somewhere his poll numbers were up as much as 5%. He's also went from $600,000 in funds to $5,000,000 since the Giuliani debate. There's still a lot of time before the primaries.
Danny,
The same people telling is leaving will be a disaster told us going in will fix everything.
What you're implying is that staying will make is better. Just because it's multi-national? No one believes you anymore.
I'm tremendously disappointed in the Dems (and R's) that didn't have the guts to put this thing to a stop. Though, there is a lot domestically that I disagree with Paul about, I admire that he has always been consistent with his message. Congress would be a lot better if there were more like Paul and Feingold.
The "good republican" in me is trying to find a reason for us to still be there trying to force democracy on a people that are just (as a whole) not that interested in it. I just can't find a reason that has any logic behind it or understand a rationale. The more weary the country gets from the occupation, the more weary I become. I've asked myself many times: What have we really accomplished in the 4 years we've been there and why are we still there involved in such a quagmire? We need to bring our troops home very soon and let them figure it out.
scott said: CK, if we went in for oil it sure hasn't worked.
Remember the old adage that 'no plan survives contact with the enemy'...? Unfortunately for the US (and allied) forces the 'plan' was pretty weak to begin with being mostly wisful thinking.
No "exit strategy", was the reason I was against going into Iraq in the first place! Our gov't had NO CLUE what they were dealing with. Don't these people study history?!
Scott: you constantly take what I type and then spin it to fit your agenda, read my virtual lips, running away from Iraq will no doubt make many US people feel better, even though they are responsible for backing this whole mess in the first place (although what will the current economic maliase then be blamed on?) but it really is an act of cowadice and failing to fix a situation entirely of your own making.
Let me be clear, getting involved in Iraq was a terrible error in the first place, foolishness and pig-headed, greedy foreign policy backed to the hilt by the American people but you can't just walk away.
For once, can the US people and it's government lead the way in forward thinking foreign policy rather than cutting and running?
I'm sympathetic to the Democrats' plight: they clearly oppose the war, but they don't want to be accused of "failing to support the troops", which would make them sitting ducks for the Republicans.
That said, a vote in the Iraq parliament would be perfect cover for the Dems to say, "We favor bringing home the troops immediately."
A mess there will certainly be if the coalition exits now, but this was always a mess. An ill-planned, mismanaged mess begun (and continued) under false pretenses. I say let the Iraqis have what they want - the freedom to make their OWN mistakes.
P.S. One of the falsehoods used to whip up support for this "war" was that the U.S. must finish what it starts...meaning a continuation/resolution of the first Gulf War. How much more circular can this line of reasoning get?
I think it's time to pull out of Iraq, but please don't act like we should have never gone in there.
I am very glad we went in there. We have saved many more lives than it cost.
You know oil isn't the only reason we went into Iraq. Are you wearing blinders? Don't you care?
Saddam Hussein has murdered over 300,000 innocent people, probably closer to 400,000.
Those 300,000 + were not soldiers, those were men, women, and children.
Families, like yours, for no reason at all.
Here is a quote from CNN, in 2004, which I know is not going to say anything to help President Bush.
"Human rights groups believe about 300,000 people were killed during Saddam's 24-year rule, which ended when U.S.-led forces toppled his regime in 2003."
This can be found at...........
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/13/iraq.graves/
Indeed SME, if the US is to finish what it starts or be deemed a coward on everything than there will be a never ending excuse to send us to war. Or at least police other peoples civil wars.
The smart way forward is to not START these foolish foreign adventures. Not pretend we can just get better at them.
Stephen,
Thanks for stopping by. Were you formerly known as 'Q'? I understand your point, but should the Democrats really care what silly insults the Republicans hurl at them? Especially when a good of them were elected specifically to get us out of this war.
Dan,
Isn't it just as pig-headed to assume we can "fix" it? The problem with Iraq to begin with is that the West thought they knew what was best for them.
Self determination is always a good thing.
tshsmom,
I'm sure many of them do look at history, but then history can be interpreted many different ways. :)
CK,
it's a good point
Don,
Republicans need to start questioning their party. I think it's been hijacked by people who never were conservative to start with.
DBack,
I've been reading a few different democrat blogs with similiar dissapoinment for their party. I don't think you're alone there.
Dad, if human rights was the reason to go there it sure wasn't portrayed that way from the start. They told us we were going in to uphold UN resolutions or even to protect our own national security.
Also, it should be noted that the U.S. and the UK had it's hand in many deaths for innocent Iraqis through sanctions and periodic bombing throughout the 90's.
Scott:
Yep, "Stephen" used to be "Q". I had lost track of you for a while, but I've seen you on Jewish Atheist's blog.
It intrigued me to see that you're now a libertarian. I'm not, but libertarianism certainly offers an antidote to many of the Bush Administration's excesses.
Cool, thanks for stopping by again.
Yeah, I've had libertarian leanings for over ten years now since I worked with a guy who introduced me to the philosophy. Until about 5 years a go I didn't consider myself a full libertarian because I was still unconvinced by some of what I considered their more radical stances. It's funny because now I see them as as quite practical and see the status quo as the radicalist view. Sometimes I need to remember the full path that I went through to get where I am in talking to other people who see me as some what of a radical now.
Post a Comment