Drunken Duck
Tell me why must our peace be this puzzle
That fractures the land, splinters war
The last nails cite the shame in our coffin
But in the end we must all die alone
--To Youth, Flogging Molly
________________
We are told the Iraqi cabinet approves a security pact with the U.S. which "will allow American forces to stay in Iraq for three years after their UN mandate expires at the end of the year," but what does this mean? The Parliament has yet to approve it, and they are the authorizing legislative body.
27 of 38 cabinet members approved of the pact, for just under a 75% approval ratio, but why is the cabinet approving anything? In a democracy, a cabinet is not a legislative body.
What about this side of the world? Why does the Iraqi parliament get a vote on the issue, but not the U.S. Congress? Since the American people are paying for this stupid Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) shouldn't our representatives get to vote on the way our tax dollars are going to be spent? If drunken duck Bush can imperially sign this pact committing the U.S. to an occupation through 1 JAN 12, then why did we bother having a presidential election?
Ranger has a multi-lateral idea: Why not pull U.S. forces out of Iraq with the proviso that the government of Iraq has the right to request U.S. combat troops should the situation demand such action. Said interaction would then be paid from Iraqi oil proceeds.
The situation in Iraq is a chicken-egg argument. Is the violence caused by the presence of U.S. troops, or is it systemic, just looking for a release valve? If caused by our presence, we should withdraw. If systemic, we should withdraw. The U.S. military is not a civil war prevention force. Any questions?
Pulling out is a win/win, and that's a slam dunk.
27 of 38 cabinet members approved of the pact, for just under a 75% approval ratio, but why is the cabinet approving anything? In a democracy, a cabinet is not a legislative body.
What about this side of the world? Why does the Iraqi parliament get a vote on the issue, but not the U.S. Congress? Since the American people are paying for this stupid Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) shouldn't our representatives get to vote on the way our tax dollars are going to be spent? If drunken duck Bush can imperially sign this pact committing the U.S. to an occupation through 1 JAN 12, then why did we bother having a presidential election?
Ranger has a multi-lateral idea: Why not pull U.S. forces out of Iraq with the proviso that the government of Iraq has the right to request U.S. combat troops should the situation demand such action. Said interaction would then be paid from Iraqi oil proceeds.
The situation in Iraq is a chicken-egg argument. Is the violence caused by the presence of U.S. troops, or is it systemic, just looking for a release valve? If caused by our presence, we should withdraw. If systemic, we should withdraw. The U.S. military is not a civil war prevention force. Any questions?
Pulling out is a win/win, and that's a slam dunk.
Labels: criminal culpability in pwot, Iraqi cabinet approves security pact with U.S., iraqi SOFA, phony war on terror
posted by rangeragainstwar at 4:19 PM
4 Comments:
Believe it or not, I still worry about this goofball trying to gin up a war with Iran!
But the point of hanging around Iraq trying to influence the grandsons and great-grandsons of Ottoman pashas - people whould could teach cunning to a fox, many of them - has always escaped me.
I just assumed that it has something to do with the Neocon plans to occupy a "central position" in the ME. Stupid, I know, but otherwise you'd just have to assume the whole clusterfuck really WAS about WMDs, democracy and the rest of the freaking glurge we kept hearing about for the first five years...
FDChief,
I know i'm on shaky ground BUT i still expect l'il Georgie to bomb Iran before he exits stage right. jim
Jim,
Well, I'm less concerned about W starting yet another thing he has no intention of finishing.
Unfortunately, I cannot say the same of our so-called "ally" on the eastern shore of the Med. And there are at least TWO more low-illumination periods (coupled with those looong northern hemisphere nights) yet to survive before 1/20/2009.
About the only reason I'm less concerned about the ally now (than say in Sept) is their own electoral crisis. That said, those folks do have a habit of deceiving everyone before they lay done a hammering.
SP
Ranger, if you can understand Iraqi internal politics, then you get the gold star for the day. As I understand it (and I don't work hard at it, because my head starts hurting), they've got some kind of parliamentary system. Or something. Whatever. I do know that in a parliamentary system such as what the Brits have got, the cabinet is far more independent and has its own power sources, unlike our cabinet, which is essentially comprised of the president's hired hands. And, last I looked, having a parliamentary system doesn't mean non-democratic.
Paul Krugman has an interesting column in today's NYT about the dangers of the long interval between when the new pres is elected and the old one is gone. His thing is economics, of course, and he discussed the damage that was done by the Hoover Administration in the interval (Nov-Mar then) between the 1932 election and FDR's inauguration.
I doubt Bush will do anything on his own WRT Iran at this late date, but I gotta admit, I'm always fearful of what our "faithful" ally over there might do to fuck us and the world up. And this is something that really pisses me off about the Congress. Those bozos essentially take all of December and January off, even in an era where the executive branch—which they're supposed to oversee—works 24/7/365, hopefully not getting the nation into too much trouble.
The problem we have is that we not only have a lame duck presidency, we also have a lame duck congress, with all of it reshuffling right along with the executive branch. Given the state of the world and our nation these days, I'm not so sure we can afford for our entire government to be on cruise control for three months every four years. Oh, and the Congress takes much of the Summer off as well.
You're absolutely right about the need for Congress to actually ratify any SOFA Bush may come up with. Well, we know the current Congress won't have time to look at it, what with their holiday shopping needs and all. But, OTOH, I'm not as concerned as one might think. I think everyone will treat this as what it is: sheer BS, but with the virtue of ending the goatfuck as soon as possible. I also think Obama will do whatever he thinks has to be done after Jan 20, without much regard to any agreement Bush comes up with.
Realistically, we're in this situation due to another gross fuckup by Bush. The UN mandate does in fact expire at the end of next month. Something therefore does have to be done—and it can't be done through the UN Security Council because of Russia and China—but BushCo, aided and abetted by the military, screwed around for months and months, probably hoping, IMO, that Bush would be replaced by McCain, and that the good times would continue to roll.
I think Obama will do what he thinks needs to be done, regardless of whatever George Bush comes up with. Frankly, if the Iraqis want to tie the hands of our forces in Iraq, well, that's fine with me. I'd just as soon see the troops sitting around in base camps drinking beer and waiting for the Freedom Bird rather than doing the internal security that Iraqis should be doing for themselves.
I'm still a little unclear as to what the Iraqis have ever done to deserve the shedding of a single drop of American blood or the expenditure of a single dollar on their behalf. Fuck them.
That's what's really nice about everybody in the Mideast, Israel included. They're all so grateful for our efforts on their behalf. At least Vietnamese and Korean counterparts would buy you a beer.
Post a Comment
<< Home