8 July 2008
Sovereignty
Posted by Joy Bischoff under: World Affairs .
I have always tried to be careful with the Iraqi War situation because I don’t want that to become the defining issue of our blog. Unity in the conservative movement and protection for the Constitution must be first. Yet I find I cannot remain even remotely neutral with this turn of events.
We do not have the right to tell a sovereign nation that we will be making the decisions regarding the actions on their soil…not them. This is wrong and illegal. This will outrage the world and bring serious consequences. This will confirm that we are there as occupiers and not just to finish the job. I am against this action completely and will not apologize for being so.
US rejects Iraqi demand for troops’ withdrawal timeline
The United States on Tuesday rejected a demand from Iraq for a specific date for pullout of US-led foreign troops from the country, saying any withdrawal will be based on conditions on the ground.
“The US government and the government of Iraq are in agreement that we, the US government, we want to withdraw, we will withdraw. However, that decision will be conditions-based,” State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said.
Iraq said on Tuesday it will reject any security pact with the United States unless it sets a date for the pullout of US-led troops.
“We will not accept any memorandum of understanding if it does not give a specific date for a complete withdrawal of foreign troops,” national security advisor Muwaffaq al-Rubaie told reporters in the holy city of Najaf.
The controversial demand from Baghdad’s Shiite-led government underlines Iraq’s new hardened stand in complex negotiations aimed at striking a security deal with Washington.
Mail this post
21 Comments so far...
Hawk Says:
8 July 2008 at 1:45 pm.
It’s called RESPONSIBILITY! We have to clean up our own mess.
Joy Bischoff Says:
8 July 2008 at 1:50 pm.
No, Hawk…it is call “authority”. How would you like it if the UN came on our soil and told us how it would be? Sovereignty is a concept that is fast losing strength and threatening our Constitution. We have no right.
Pickles Says:
8 July 2008 at 2:08 pm.
I don’t know how most Americans will feel about this but I know me and my friends think we are setting up to be occupiers. I am very worried about us telling them no. It is so stinking arrogant.
Bryon Says:
8 July 2008 at 3:44 pm.
The US has done a lot of good in Iraq and even though I think we should have stayed out in the first place I think we have done what was expected and now should accept the sovereignty of the new government. I am with my mom. This is illegal and will drastically intensify the attacks on our soldiers.
Sharon Anderson Says:
8 July 2008 at 7:20 pm.
My brother knows many people in Europe who hate Bush and the US for invading Iraq in the first place. They consider it a preemptive war and look on us as imperialists. There is much anti-American sentiment that we never hear about. Can you imagine what will happen if we now refuse to leave Iraq? Do we want to antagonize the whole world?
I have issues with the government of Myranmar and did not like that they would not let us bring in aid to the cyclone victims, but I can understand why they had concerns.
Sharon Anderson Says:
8 July 2008 at 10:26 pm.
Greenspan said we were in Iraq because of oil. If we stay it will be because of oil, not because of responsibility. Hawk, I respect your desire that we don’t walk away and leave a mess, but I don’t see how it is our responsibility to stop the shedding of blood in a part of the world that has been bathed in blood for thousands of years, especially if the Iraqis are ready to “step up to the plate” and be responsible for their own destiny.
Here is a quote from an article in Sept 2007: In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.
However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece
The Realist Says:
9 July 2008 at 12:02 am.
I use to like Greenspan. Thousands of soldiers who signed up to fight for freedom in Iraq didn’t do it for oil, they did it for the right reasons. I guess some people up high could be in it for the wrong reasons but most aren’t.
SGS Says:
10 July 2008 at 10:34 pm.
Hawk, yes, we should make every effort to “clean up” our own mess, but it is only with the consent of the recognized sovereign. Iraq did not have its own sovereign until a couple of years ago, when the Iraqi people approved their new constitution. We have been turning more and more responsibilities over to their government. They have arrived at point they feel they are prepared to do more. We should recognize that a “child” have grown up and let it go when it is ready. We do need to commit that we will leave as soon as is appropriate for both of us. They are not asking us to leave next year, but to make a promise that we will do so when they are ready, unlikely McCain’s “100 years” commitment.
SGS Says:
10 July 2008 at 10:39 pm.
Hank, I too thought I liked Greenspan, especially back then when he focused only on what he is good at — understanding the big picture of our financial health. Since he stepped down, he has been saying too much, especially in areas he has no right to claim. Well, he has the right as a private citizen, but he indeed has been abusing his mega-star image, like all other Hollywood celebrities, and they too do not have any right to the claim of expertise! And with the current signs of our economy, I’m not sure Greenspan has done his job well, beyond postponing the inevidence.
Jesse Says:
11 July 2008 at 1:24 am.
I agree that it has to come down to sovereignty. If we don’t respect theirs, we can’t expect other countries to respect ours. I bet the Iraqis don’t like that 100 year occupation idea at all.
Cavetrollhead Says:
11 July 2008 at 12:52 pm.
My understanding is that they want a specific date, not a set of conditions, SGS.
As far as our interests in Iraq:
We we look very bad if conditions deteriorate there.
If the oil falls into Wahhabist hands our economy will suffer.
If it is a safe haven for terrorists. . .
As far as justification:
Sadaam was their mess, not ours. (He did have as we now know WMD programs -even if they weren’t active, and was a potential threat to neighbors and had a proven history of helping terrorists, and a huge stockpile of Yellow Cake which he could supply to rogue nations and could end up in terrorist hands) The war is not over until Iraq is secure! They are NOT a sovereign nation! Don’t let the rhetoric fool you. We allow them to run their affairs as much as we can. Their freedom and constitution exist because we paid the price for it and we shouldn’t let them run thing until we have clear assurances that they are ready.
Matt Says:
11 July 2008 at 1:52 pm.
Wow, they aren’t a sovereign nation? That means we are their rulers. If we ever announced that to the world there would be an unbelievable outcry and al-Sadr and others would take things to a level of violence we can’t imagine.
SGS Says:
11 July 2008 at 1:56 pm.
Cave, we did not just “allow them to run their affairs as much as we can.” We literally turned over the government to them. Yes, Iraq may not be as ready as they thought they are, but the fact remains that we have turned it over to them. We are not running their government, but merely advising them on how things should be done. We have minimal policy making authority or role, if any. We may have turned over the sovereignty too soon, but turned over we did. And we have been pushing other countries to give Iraq the recognizance for some time. We also have been working behind the scenes at UN to get Iraq a stamp that it is a nation once again. We need to live with our actions.
Cavetrollhead Says:
11 July 2008 at 10:47 pm.
Well just for a little history lesson. Recall Japan and Germany after WWII. They were “sovereign nations too, but we many limits on them, including their military. To this day Japan has legal restrictions on their military. We ran Germany for years, and even threatened to topple the government if they didn’t get a handle on their internal security. And when we made that threat, they did get a hold of internal security. It seems like people are forgetting how messy war is, including the aftermath of war.
SGS Says:
12 July 2008 at 9:19 am.
Cave, funny you would brought them up, because I did want to bring them up too. I did not because I do not know how long was it before we turned the government over to the people in those countries. I did not have the opportunity to read up on those governments.
SGS Says:
12 July 2008 at 9:41 am.
Here’s what I found from a quick reading regarding Japanese government. We need to recognize a few factors that played into Japaneses’ favor, over Iraqi. First, they were industrious people, and they were not oppressed. Second, their economy were threatened to be ruined until Korean War when US Government paid Japanese government huge amount of money. Anyway, here is some of the differences in how the governments was established (all from Wiki):
- MacArthur had a belief in that his – and by proxy the American – presence as Supreme Commander was a holy one. This is unlikely our own Iraqi “Ambassador” which made a huge mess before he was replaced.
- Some of these [several hundred U.S. civil servants as well as military personnel] effectively wrote a first draft of the Japan Constitution, which the Diet [Japanese legislative] then ratified after a few amendments. With Iraq, it was the other way around. We advised them on what to write in the constitution, but they wrote it from ground up.
- Douglas MacArthur and his SCAP staff played a primary role to exonerate Emperor Sh?wa and all members of the imperial family implicated in the war. Need I to say “debaathification”, where the members of Saddam’s party was guilty by association, and strictly forbidded from serving in any leadership positions?
- Above the political and economic control SCAP had for the seven years following Japan’s surrender [, 1945 until 1952], SCAP also had strict control over all of the Japanese media.
I could not find, quickly, any article that go into depth on Japaneses’ voting process, like we saw with Iraq. I suppose from the comment that we wrote most of their constitution, they do not have as much options as Iraqi had. Oh yes, and we formally turned over the sovereignty to Japanese when the Treaty of San Francisco between the Allied Powers and Japan, came into force on April 28, 1952. We already turned over sovereignty to Iraqi as soon as they approved their constitution.
Joy Bischoff Says:
12 July 2008 at 12:14 pm.
Additionally, we were attacked by Japan and we were at war with the nations of Japan and Germany. We were not at war with the people of Iraq. We went there to free them from an oppressive leader. To be occupiers over defeated nations is one thing, to be occupiers over a nation we freed from oppression is another. There are many other differences but I’ve written about that ad naseum.
Cavetrollhead Says:
12 July 2008 at 3:01 pm.
Good points SGS, I agree whole heartedly that we completely boched it on the points that you mentioned. and as for the date of formal sovereignty in Japan again we did it right back then, and maybe wrong this time. But in practical terms, the voting process is a technicality as far as domestic security was concerned. Iraq was not secure then and is not secure now.
And though the Japanese weren’t as suppressed as Iraq, the Germans were. Try hiding a Jew in your house in WWII Germany, or in fact being a Jew or any number of other people who Hitler had exterminated. Try speaking your mind in WWI Germany. WWII Germany and Iraq are very similar.
As far as being at war with the “people” of a country, instead of the dictator. I fail to see much difference between Hitler and Sadaam. Hitler was elected as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Sadaam took power by force but also with a lot of popular support. That is the only real difference. Once in power, there is no real difference. Germany never attacked us either.
As far as occupiers, we are not in Iraq contrary to the will of the government there. The want us there. WE ARE ONLY REJECTING A TIMETABLE for withdrawal. They haven’t asked us to leave. They have simply asked us to set a date and in effect let our enemies there know how long to LIE LOW, STOCKPILE WEAPONS, AND PLAN BEFORE THEY BURST UPON THE SCENE TO REAP HAVOC ON THE IRAQIS and the democratic leaders there. – Upon which time, you can be sure, if the government survives a coup, they will ask for our help, and unless Obama is the president, (God Help us) we will be going back and have to start from scratch with a more powerful enemy.
KEY POINT: The Iraqi gvt. HAS NOT ASKED US TO LEAVE. Therefore we are not the occupiers that the Islamic extremists want to convince the world we are. (though even if they do ask us to leave, we need to make sure doing so won’t facilitate an attack on the US in any way.
BTW, have we found all of the yellow cake?
T. Fan Says:
12 July 2008 at 3:38 pm.
Germany declared war on most of Europe, parts of Asia and Africa. It was a world war. Iraq was not in a state of war. We went in as liberators. We did not go into WWII as liberators, we went in to defeat Germany and Japan. Huge difference.
Cavetrollhead Says:
13 July 2008 at 2:12 am.
Our ostensible reason to go to Iraq was not only to liberate as we all know. That was just a pathos based argument.
Also, technically, the justification of it was because they violated the ceasefire agreements of Desert Storm. (The ceasefire became null when they violated the agreements of it. It wasn’t a new war as far as we were concerned, but a continuation of Desert Storm. There violated the No-fly Zone, Weapons inspections, fired on US aircraft (futile as it was), etc. Albeit the ceasefire was not a unilateral agreement, I think, Saddam violated it before we. And the UN is fast becoming anti US anyway and is not looking out for us so why let them tie our hands.)
Besides the point is not weather we should have invaded Iraq. That is a mute point. (Hind site is 20/20). The question is, do we set a timetable for withdrawal at the request of the government there. The obvious answer to me is no. Why would we? As long as they want us to stay- we aught to stay on our terms. And as long as leaving may pose a threat to the US, we ought to leave on our terms. Heck, we just barely got the yellow cake out and who knows what else there is to clean. When we are sure that there is no way the terrorists can use the situation in Iraq to hurt us, then we can leave.
Hawk Says:
13 July 2008 at 12:25 pm.
I most agree with Cave. I’m a little nervous about their sovereignty issue because I do think we went in as liberators, we said it enough and it will rile the world if we change that perception. We need to handle this with kid gloves and have secret negotiations with the Iraqi government so they understand the danger to themselves if we withdraw too fast. Their lives would definitely be at stake without our help.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
