You may only read this site if you've purchased Our Kampf from Amazon or Powell's or me
• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show

"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket

"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming

April 08, 2008

What No One In America Knows

There's something missing from this recent AP story:

Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr threatened Tuesday to lift a seven-month freeze on his Mahdi Army militia if the Iraqi government does not halt attacks on his followers or set a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal.

What's almost unknown in America is that al-Sadr isn't just demanding US withdrawal at the point of a gun. The Iraqis who want us to leave—ie, the great majority—have been trying to make it happen with words and the law for some time. They've followed all the rules of democracy and "won," but...we're still there.

The legal authority for the US presence is the UN mandate. The Iraqi parliament passed a law last summer requiring that they got to approve and set conditions for any extension of the mandate when it expired at the end of 2007:

Iraqi legislators led by followers of a radical Shiite cleric passed a resolution Tuesday [June 4, 2007] requiring the government to seek parliamentary permission for asking the United Nations to extend the mandate of U.S.-led forces in Iraq.

The measure was approved along party lines, with Sunnis joining the bloc loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr and another disaffected Shiite party to support it, and Shiite and Kurdish backers of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government in opposition...

If the government wants to extend the presence of the multinational forces, it has to come to us in the parliament to convince us first," said the Sunni parliament speaker, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani.

Here's what al-Sadr's parliamentary allies said at the time:

Reached today by phone in Baghdad, Nassar al Rubaie, the head of the 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."

But in December, 2007 when the mandate was about to expire, Maliki (in his role as Bush's mini-me) told the Iraqi parliament "Suck. On. This." and got it extended to the end of 2008 without any vote. Now, despite the fact that the Iraqi constitution gives the parliament authority to approve all treaties (and the US constitution gives the congress authority to approve all treaties) Bush and Maliki are planning to sign an "agreement" approving a permanent US occupation...without the involvement of either country's legislative branch. Moreover, since Maliki is our puppet, this essentially is the administration agreeing with itself:

A confidential draft agreement covering the future of US forces in Iraq, passed to the Guardian, shows that provision is being made for an open-ended military presence in the country.

The draft strategic framework agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, dated March 7 and marked "secret" and "sensitive", is intended to replace the existing UN mandate and authorises the US to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security" without time limit.

The authorisation is described as "temporary" and the agreement says the US "does not desire permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq". But the absence of a time limit or restrictions on the US and other coalition forces - including the British - in the country means it is likely to be strongly opposed in Iraq and the US.

Iraqi critics point out that the agreement contains no limits on numbers of US forces, the weapons they are able to deploy, their legal status or powers over Iraqi citizens, going far beyond long-term US security agreements with other countries.

The Iraqis who want us to leave, but are willing to work for it non-violently, can honestly ask: what else are we supposed to do? There unfortunately doesn't seem to be an answer.

—Jonathan Schwarz

Posted at April 8, 2008 10:32 AM
Comments

Well, George IS OUR President and WE let him do anything he wants. If he wants to stay in Iraq, I guess its OK with US. Oh, some will complain, talk morality of it all, discuss the druthers of the situation at length, give advice to each other, but in the end, WE let George do whatever he wants.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at April 8, 2008 11:50 AM

Is it heinous/treasonous to hope that the US loses in a legal battle, as it would be to hope that the US loses in a military battle? What if the legal battle is between the legislative branch and and the executive branch of the US? While I am asking questions, is faith alone sufficient to insure damnation, or are works required?

Posted by: Monkay at April 8, 2008 02:09 PM

"...for imperative reasons of security..."

Shouldn't that read "for imperial reasons of security"?

Posted by: Stephen Stralka at April 8, 2008 03:43 PM
The Iraqis who want us to leave, but are willing to work for it non-violently, can honestly ask: what else are we supposed to do? There unfortunately doesn't seem to be an answer.

Clarification please: When you say, "There unfortunately doesn't seem to be an answer", from whose perspective do you mean? From our or the Iraqis?

Posted by: angryman@24:10 at April 8, 2008 03:59 PM

When you say, "There unfortunately doesn't seem to be an answer", from whose perspective do you mean? From ours or the Iraqis?

Well, from theirs. Certainly I hope from ours there's an answer for how to change things non-violently.

Posted by: Jonathan Schwarz at April 8, 2008 05:09 PM

Hello, Jonathan.
I was thinking that Nir Rosen said rather explicitly the other day that Iraq was basically a Sarajevo II in the waiting.
Frankly, it changed my thinking about Iraq. The Iraq War is over, long gone. What we have now is a War among Iraqis.

It makes sense that the Sunnis would vote against withdrawal. They're the ones waiting to be slaughtered.
The Kurds, I believe, are more along the lines of nationalists who would vote for the removal of Jiminy Cricket.
But I can't figure out those Shiites.
Maybe they're more like Democrats than I give them credit for.

Posted by: Progressive Traditionalist at April 8, 2008 05:15 PM

I thoroughly detest it, but there is a kind of satanic majesty to the machinations of the Bush Administration when engaged in an effort to indulge its whims, and I believe the Bush Administration's push for a so-called "status of forces" agreement with Iraq will stand as an example of such evil genius.
Right now, every time they are pushed on the issue, the designated Bush Administration mouthpieces repeat the soothing mantra that the contemplated agreement with Iraq will not require Congressional approval, because it will not commit the use of the American military to the defense of Iraq. However, viewed through the lens of the Bush/Cheyney/McCain(?) theory of unitary executive power, the contemplated agreement is the functional equivalent of such a commitment because it explicitly (in the draft quoted from in The Guardian) states that it is in the "interest" of America that threats to "Iraq's sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence" "be deterred." Certainly, if the Maliki puppet government notifies George The Magnificent of such a threat (or, just as likely, is told to give such notification), can't George dip into his inexhaustible bag of Commander In Chief powers and simply that the military action I am about to take (or have just taken, thank you very much) was required to protect vital American interests as codified in the agreement he himself created.
If you don't think the Bush Administration is crazy enough to do so, just read one of John Yoo's legal memoranda expounding on the godlike powers of the president, and his unfettered right to act where American interests are threatened.

Posted by: RoaringPurpleEagle at April 8, 2008 07:36 PM

It makes sense that the Sunnis would vote against withdrawal. They're the ones waiting to be slaughtered.

No, the Sunnis voted for withdrawal:

The measure [requiring the government to seek parliamentary permission for asking the United Nations to extend the mandate of U.S.-led forces in Iraq] was approved along party lines, with Sunnis joining the bloc loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr...

Posted by: SteveB at April 8, 2008 08:18 PM

But I can't figure out those Shiites.

Well, Maliki's motivations for supporting an indefinite US occupation should be clear enough. Without his American protectors, the Green Zone would be overrun by Al Sadr's men and Maliki would be swinging from a Bechtel-installed lamp post.

Posted by: SteveB at April 8, 2008 08:24 PM

Bush and Maliki are planning to sign an "agreement" approving a permanent US occupation...without the involvement of either country's legislative branch.

Amb. Crocker was almost forthright about the regime's determination to bypass Congress on this question, responding to questioning by Sen. Webb today before the Armed Services Committee.

Posted by: Nell at April 8, 2008 11:34 PM

They're trying to make this out like it's a Status Of Forces Agreement, which is to say - near as I can discern - something akin to the diplomatic agreements between executives regarding embassies, but for military forces, in regards to how local law applies to said foreign personnel. SOFAs don't get congressional approval in the US, and as far as I can tell they don't get any equivalent approval anywhere else.

So, legally, maybe we're back in the realm of those declarations of war that are never declared, but exist nonetheless in circumstances where torture is involved, then mysteriously evaporate when they're not. I don't know. I'm just a caveman. Your airports and neon crosses bewilder and confuse me.

Here's Gen. Richard Meyers discussing this with As'ad Abu Khalil:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEwkl4MS3Mc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-eccI1W1ds

The gist seems to be that a SOFA isn't a treaty, but an "agreement". The difference appears to be that executive branches can just declare "agreements" without any recourse to law and pretend they're legally binding, so long as the parties who made the agreement continue to agree to not enforce the law.

I left my Pocket International Law Expert in another pair of pants, is that approximately the way it works?

Posted by: buermann at April 9, 2008 01:13 AM

buermann: George can do whatever he wants, if the ground don't suck him down then he can defy the Law of Gravity if he likes.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at April 9, 2008 01:47 AM

Like the Mahdi Army, the Sunni militias hope to wait for the Americans to reduce their troop levels before they resume fighting Shiite militias.... These Sunni militias also have political goals and are attempting... effectively fight the Shiite militias and the Shiite dominated government, which they call an “Iranian Occupation.”
---Nir Rosen
02Apr08

I misread the statement, but the conclusion is somewhat accurate.
Iraq is currently Sarajevo II in the waiting.

Posted by: Progressive Traditionalist at April 9, 2008 04:36 PM

But I can't figure out those Shiites.

think Blacks in South Africa...Hindus in India...Hutus in Rwanda... oppressed MAJORITIES controlled for the nonce by a colonial power arming a "ruling" MINORITY...

Posted by: konopelli/wgg at April 9, 2008 04:52 PM

think Blacks in South Africa...
No, not quite.
The Shia are too factionalized to make a direct comparison.
I'm thinking that they really are the Democratic Party of Iraq's new Western-style democracy.

re: almostinfamous
That was a very informative link.
Unfortunately, it made my head hurt...

Foreign policy was never my strong point.
I like theory.
Music theory, physics, political theory....
Give me theory, not foreigners....
(including Foreigner 4-- never did care for it)

Posted by: Progressive Traditionalist at April 9, 2008 09:54 PM

Foreign policy is the professional wrestling of politics.

Posted by: Progressive Traditionalist at April 9, 2008 10:07 PM
Foreign policy is the professional wrestling of politics.

I don't get that analogy.

To me foreign policy is to public policy as hedge fund managers are to finance -- well educated and immoral swine, intentionally opaque, cliquishly populated by many idiots enabled by social class (and Yale).

Posted by: angryman@24:10 at April 9, 2008 11:07 PM

Here are some other things that no one in America knows about Iraq:

There has never been a civil war in Iraq or a ‘sectarian civil war’ between Muslim sects. The Baath party was mainly Shia. There are Shia in the fictitious ‘Sunni Triangle’ and Sunni in Sadr City. The Muslim sects (there are more than 2!) frequently intermarry.

The ‘sectarian violence’ is just how the American media has chosen to explain why the guerrilla war isn’t ending. “Endless guerrilla war” (i.e. Vietnam) isn’t likely to be politically popular in America, so another explanation was desperately needed.

Muslims don’t hate Islam and aren’t likely to bomb mosques. Iraqis blame that on a group of heavily armed Islamophobes that recently arrived.

When France was losing control of Algeria, the army began setting off car bombs in an attempt to get the Algerians to hate the guerrillas. If one were cynical…

The reason many Iraqis still have limited access to electricity, food, and water is because they’re being collectively punished for resisting the occupation. The same thing is happening for the same reason in Gaza. It’s not due to ‘sectarian violence’ either.

Posted by: Cous Cous at April 11, 2008 01:20 PM

"To my understanding a Conservative puts America first. He doesn’t start the process for Trade Deals that will handicap American businesses and jobs."

OVERLOOKED yet ASE and RELATED FACTS?
You decide.

Rothco,The "UNIFORM COMPANY," All hype , clothing for costumes only, or something VERY BAD & OVERLOOKED.
US Soldiers and Military are forbidden to wear these useless uniform "knock off" FAKE & DECEPTIVE "Look a likes."
COUNTERFEIT USA MILITARY uniforms should not be sold in such a way that USA soldiers get into trouble wearing their uniform to duty or well wishing gift givers later hear that the undisclosed COUNTERFEIT ROTHCO UNIFORMS get loved ones into trouble, causing need to exchange and other unspoken issues.
COUNTERFEIT USA MILITARY UNIFORMS NOT LABELED AS COSTUME CLOTHING ARE A MALICIOUS TREASON AGAINST THE USA. IT is an offense to EVERY soldier and family and danger to the USA.
ROTHCO has escaped prosecution thus far.
Why the US Government has not noticed where some uniform sales are made to as they only have 1 approved uniform and 1 approved pair of Military boots , makes one wonder what NON US GOVERNMENT(S) are being secretly supplied similar looking uniforms to possible enemies of the USA , thus endangering our AMERICAN TROUPES.
Why do the Federal Government ALLOW ROTHCO to get away with HIGH TREASON? Were we Bushwacked by graft from http://www.rothco.com ?

John Ottaviano

Posted by: John Ottaviano at April 14, 2008 07:50 PM