Gee Whiz, Again

Let no guilty man escape
--U.S. Grant,
on the Whiskey Ring scandal of 1875,
in which he used the pardon to do just that

To conclude,
they are lying knaves
--Much Ado About Nothing, 
Shakespeare
_______________

[This is re-post of "Gee Whiz", orig. published 2 APR 2009. "Everything old is new again ..."]

The commonly-held assumption is that this war is at a final stage -- "Six years after the U.S. invaded Iraq, the end of America's costly mission is in sight" (Iraq Improved but Problems Remain). But the Vietnam war had another phase after the U.S. bowed out of the fight.

The same will be true in Iraq, so we oughtn't to pull a "gee whiz, who'd a thunk it" when it happens.

In the final stage of the war, America's challenge will be to prevent ethnic and sectarian competition from exploding into violence on the scale that plunged the nation to the brink of all-out civil war two years ago.

If the U.S. really wanted to prevent ethnic and sectarian violence, we would not have invaded six years ago. Saddam had that problem under control. Oh U.S., you are so disingenuous.

The concept that the U.S. will honor the existing non-congressionally approved Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) -- "U.S. combat troops are due to leave by September 2010, with all American soldiers gone by the end of the following year" -- is a dream at best; a lie, at worst.

The U.S. has no intention of disengaging. If we did our troops would be assing up and returning to their peacetime permanent stations. The troops remain on station because the Joint Chiefs want them to remain on station.

As Ranger's momma used to say: Mark my words!

Gee Whiz

Let no guilty man escape
--U.S. Grant,
on the Whiskey Ring scandal of 1875,
in which he used the pardon to do just that

To conclude,
they are lying knaves
--Much Ado About Nothing, 
Shakespeare
_______________

The commonly-held assumption is that this war is at a final stage -- "Six years after the U.S. invaded Iraq, the end of America's costly mission is in sight" (Iraq Improved but Problems Remain). But the Vietnam war had another phase after the U.S. bowed out of the fight.

The same will be true in Iraq, so we oughtn't to pull a "gee whiz, who'd a thunk it" when it happens.

In the final stage of the war, America's challenge will be to prevent ethnic and sectarian competition from exploding into violence on the scale that plunged the nation to the brink of all-out civil war two years ago.

If the U.S. really wanted to prevent ethnic and sectarian violence, we would not have invaded six years ago. Saddam had that problem under control. Oh U.S., you are so disingenuous.

The concept that the U.S. will honor the existing non-congressionally approved Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) -- "U.S. combat troops are due to leave by September 2010, with all American soldiers gone by the end of the following year" -- is a dream at best; a lie, at worst.

The U.S. has no intention of disengaging. If we did our troops would be assing up and returning to their peacetime permanent stations. The troops remain on station because the Joint Chiefs want them to remain on station.

As Ranger's momma used to say: Mark my words!

Where is the Love?

Thus Ants, who for a Grain employ their Cares,
Think all the Business of the Earth is theirs.
Thus Honey-combs seem Palaces to Bees,
And Mites imagine all the World a Cheese
--Alexander Pope

These last few weeks of holding on
The days are dull, the nights are long
Guess it's better to say
Goodbye to you
--Goodbye to You, Patty Smyth
______________

It couldn't last forever, and the flames were destined to burn down into a sooty ash. The love affair is over.

The New & Improved security agreement between the People's Republic of Iraq (PRI) and George Bush signals the loss of legal immunity for contractors, as expected (Iraq Pact Forces Contractors to Confront Work Without Immunity.) Their previous "legal immunity" was larceny rammed through on a wing and a prayer.

Since by all definitions of statehood the PRI is a nation, then it logically follows that everyone in that country, including the Department of State, the Department of Defense and all contractors are subject to the laws of PRI. Nations have sovereignty. Period.

Hasn't the American taxpayer spent trillions on this Fantasyland ride already? If our money was buying democracy for Iraq, then let us accept the entire construction. After all, if we don't believe it, who will? Pronouncements by J. P. Bremer and Crew to the contrary, international law remains unchanged.

The U.S., like a huckster hawking snake oil, has no qualms preaching democracy and the Rule of Law abroad in this Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©), while its shore is ever-receding here at home. The new security document reveals the non-democratic impositions of the U.S.-led occupation.

With contractors falling under the jurisdiction of Iraqi courts, it could become harder for them to recruit new workers and could drive up costs as insurance rates and wages rise to offset the risk of landing in a local jail.

This should not even be a point of contention. If the contractors were to comport themselves in a democratic manner they would not run afoul of Iraqi law. Alas: Contractors can no longer play Cowboys and Indians (just when the boys were having so much fun.) The Indians are tired of the arrogance.

Doug Brooks, the head of the International Peace Operations Association, a Washington industry group for security and logistics contractors, said member companies support accountability in Iraq but have concerns about the fairness of the country's legal system.

Hear, Hear! There are concerns about the fairness of the country's legal system. Uhhh. . .and since when has the concept of legality infringed upon the PWOT? The PWOT is packed with illegal U.S. actions, from its justification on down. Contractors are not imbued with a sense of concern for the Iraqi civilians wounded and killed while under their watch.

Does anybody expect fairness from a legal system that has seen its country treated like a big military playground? Before Iraq can be criticized, U.S. actions to this point need to be examined. Ranger wonders why the Iraqis don't just kick us out on our asses. What good can come from further U.S. presence?

Mr. Maliki -- get some balls and go for it! At least this public eviction would show the world that one person in this entire PWOT is acting rationally.

Comfy SOFA II

Praesis ut Prosis ne ut imperes
"Lead in order to serve, not in order to rule"

The nation is in a death struggle.
It must either become one vast slaveocracy
of petty tyrants,
or wholly the land of the free
--Angelina Grimke

Ranger Question of the Day:
George Bush ignored legal precedent in 2003,
so why is it relevant now? History has already
judged him, so why fudge the report?
_____________

The impending Iraq Status of Forces Agreement is characterized by the indeterminate pall in which this administration has swathed so many of its legal agreements.

What is a SOFA? A treaty? A non-binding agreement? This particular SOFA, along with many recent SOFA's, seems poised to slide through the system without congressional approval. The argument against requiring congressional approval says that these are military, therefore falling under the purview of the Commander in Chief.

However, this argument ignores the Constitutional requirements and the balance of powers. SOFA's are supposedly treaties; if so, they necessitate congressional approval. The NATO treaty mandates the SOFA with those affected nations. The SOFA's were not congressionally approved sulum because the foundation treaty was approved. It is a naive and false proposition that a SOFA with Iraq is only a military security arrangement. The SOFA in NATO requires:

• Host Nation (HN) law enforcement have the legal authority to assume control of any criminal event on a U.S./NATO post. This includes terrorist incidents that are simply criminal acts.

• U.S./NATO members are subject to HN laws and regulations

• U.S. military or MP's can neither arrest HN personnel nor try or imprison them. In fact, they can not even question them. This would be a HN function.

Then why is the U.S. trying to railroad Iraq into a SOFA that expresses exactly the opposite of U.S./NATO requirements? SOFA's based on normal international law and standards of conduct should be similar across the board, as mandated by the concept of nationhood, sovereignty and the rule of law.

If U.S. forces and contractors are not subject to Iraqi law and if Iraqis can be arrested, interrogated and imprisoned by U.S. military forces, then the concept of Iraqi sovereignty and nationhood is a fiction. Since it is a phony war, why not just admit Iraq is a phony nation?

Ranger wonders why the Bush administration is concerned with the idea of constructing a U.S./Iraqi treaty that they are calling a SOFA. When the UN mandate authorizing the continued U.S. occupation expires in December, what will be the big deal? The U.S. violated international law by invading in an aggressive, preemptive war -- why sweat the small stuff, now?

Contrary to Mike Mullen's line in the sand, if President Bush says we are staying, we will. Unless Congress cuts off war funding, who is gonna kick us out?

Not a Comfy SOFA

"We Do Bad Things to Bad People"
--T-shirt for the "Bush Hogs,"
3 Bn 20th Special Forces Group (Abn.) [AL]

Democracy and capitalism are the two great pillars
of the American idea.
To have rocked one of those pillars
may be regarded as a misfortune.
To have damaged the reputation of both, at home and abroad,
is a pretty stunning achievement for an American president
--Boris Johnson, U.K. Telegraph

There's been a load of compromisin'
On the road to my horizon
But I'm gonna be where the lights are shinin' on me
--Rhinestone Cowboy, Glen Campbell
________________

In "Bush Team Pushes Hard for Iraq Security Deal" we read,

The Bush administration has launched a top-level lobbying campaign to persuade skeptical U.S. lawmakers and disapproving Iraqi politicians to support a security agreement governing the continued presence of American troops in Iraq.

Although congressional approval is not legally required U.S. lawmakers' support is considered crucial for an agreement to go forward. In Iraq, where the deal must pass through several complex layers of approval, the going is considered even tougher.

If Congressional approval is not needed to ratify this Status of Forces of treaty, then is the U.S. still a constitutional democracy?

Is Iraq a country? The U.S.? Is an agreement between countries not a "treaty"? Are treaties not to be ratified by Congress?

In Slate's "Bush's Final Illusion -- the President's Agreement with Iraq Bypasses Congress. Again," writers Ackerman and Hathaway accuse Bush of making an unconstitutional claim to the unilateral right to commit the U.S. to his agreement. Why are members of this Congress behaving like they are presidential lapdogs? Do they get special rhinestone collars for this?

General Ray Odierno accused Iran of bribing Iraqi parliamentary members to reject the SOFA pact when it comes up for a vote (A Critical Stage in Iraq.) How does one decide the difference in degrees of criminality when one takes the hubristic stance of accusing another of criminal malfeasance? Surely bribing a parliament is bad.

But how about bypassing their authority entirely?