Whose Country Is It?
The following sidebar piece from today's Wall Street Journal exemplifies why this Iraqi adventure will never work:
Iraq's premier cannot challenge U.S. authority as the U.S. has no authority in Iraq. If the U.S. talks of insurgents in Iraq, then the government of Iraq must be the legitimate target of the insurgency. The U.S. policy in Iraq perpetrated the myth that the U.S. passed sovereignty to the Iraqis.
If they are sovereign, it is their country to do with as they see fit. Isn't this what all those purple thumbs supposedly symbolized?
Rumsfeld proposed $1 billion to speed expansion of Iraq's security forces. And of course, Malaki is more than happy to take our money. Mr. Rumsfeld didn't explain how this $1 billion expenditure will benefit U.S. interests. As always, our policies address Iraqi needs over U.S. domestic requirements.
Iraq's premier challenged U.S. authority by forcing U.S. troops to
dismantle checkpoints set up in the hunt for an abducted comrade in Baghdad
Shiite areas.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called for the removal of U.S. checkpoints from streets in Baghdad, in what seemed to be "his latest and boldest gambit in an increasingly tense struggle for more independence" from the U.S., the New York Times writes.
The order was "one of the most overt expressions of self-determination by Iraqi leaders in the 3 1/2 -year-old U.S. occupation," the Washington Post notes, and it
followed two weeks of increasingly tense exchanges between Iraqi and U.S.
officials, and a video conference between Mr. Maliki and President Bush Saturday. The demand implied that Mr. Maliki had the power to command U.S.
forces, and seemed to overstep his authority and to be aimed at placating his Shiite constituency, the Times adds.
Iraq's premier cannot challenge U.S. authority as the U.S. has no authority in Iraq. If the U.S. talks of insurgents in Iraq, then the government of Iraq must be the legitimate target of the insurgency. The U.S. policy in Iraq perpetrated the myth that the U.S. passed sovereignty to the Iraqis.
If they are sovereign, it is their country to do with as they see fit. Isn't this what all those purple thumbs supposedly symbolized?
Rumsfeld proposed $1 billion to speed expansion of Iraq's security forces. And of course, Malaki is more than happy to take our money. Mr. Rumsfeld didn't explain how this $1 billion expenditure will benefit U.S. interests. As always, our policies address Iraqi needs over U.S. domestic requirements.
posted by rangeragainstwar at 2:35 PM
2 Comments:
I'd agree there are probably no Status of Forces Agreements betwixt Iraq and the U.S. I've not read any ref. to to same. SOFA's are entered willingly between allies; usually SOFA's are not imposed.
Technically I believe Mr. Malaki is responsible for all aspects of his country as befits a sovereign nation. I assume by "most meaningful" authority you're referring to that the U.S. wields by virtue of combat and dollar power. I believe both are now stretched to the breaking point.
I actually believe Iraq has a more positive economic future than that of the so-called coalition forces. This present de facto power does not = de jure legitimacy. I also presume that when you say at al-Sadr's pleasure, you mean that of his Iranian handlers...
Roger that.
Post a Comment
<< Home