Stumbling to the Finish and a Clarification

Clarification

First, the clarification. Going over my last post on oil, I noticed that I concluded with a statement that in retrospect seems a bit harsh toward "average Americans." The statement branded them as having become "lazy and complacent" and "coddled" by easy credit.

It was an "unqualified" conclusion, which obviously requires qualification and probably refers far more to our political system and the majority of the politicians that system produces, than to our general population.

Apoligies to all of those falsely blamed. And, more explanation in a subsequent post.

Stumbling to the Finish

Bad week for Bush. Supreme Court upholds habeas corpus, in a close 5-4 decision (deserves separate post on its own). Prime Minister of Iraq Maliki announces that joint Iraqi-U.S. negotiations over a new occupation agreement for U.S. forces have broken down (the existing agreement ends at the end of the year). Seems the major sticking point is over Iraqi sovereignity; they want U.S. forces to be subject to Iraqi law and Iraqi coordination on U.S. operations in-country. Our presence in Iraq may end with a whimper rather than a bang, by simply being asked, by the Iraqi government, to leave.

Fair enough. The principal reason justifying pre-emptive war (i.e. the invasion) was weapons of mass destruction - get them before they get us. The 9/11 ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq were ALWAYS weak and implied, not stated. The reason of Iraqi failure to adhere to prior U.N. resolutions broke down when we failed to go back to the U.N., due to lack of votes, for a final resolution authorizing implementation of the prior resolutions by force. Invading Iraq to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, which we believed would be used against us, was a very tenuous, but more or less "legitimate" reason for war. Of course, once we failed to find these weapons, that reason evaporated. Point is that until we determined there were no weapons of mass destruction, Iraq was OUR problem. Once that reason disappeared, Iraq became primarily an Iraqi problem and we became part of the Iraqi problem.

I am in the camp that believes the invasion was one of the worst U.S. foreign policy blunders in our history, but for a moment let's give the Administration the benefit of the doubt. Assuming some sanity, the present "goal" of the United States in Iraq must be to simply ensure sufficient stability to allow the Iraqi people to carry on with their lives without the secretarian violence the invasion brought on and, hopefully, better than they had lived under Saddam Hussein and the Baathist Party. Any goal beyond that (e.g. a democratic state in the mid-east, access to Iraqi oil, an anti-Iranian regime, etc.) is basically U.S. interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, through armed intervention and occupation.

In other words, if we want to leave Iraq now that is certainly our decision, with a parting gesture ranging from "sorry bout that," to x number of dollars in aid for reconstruction, or whatever. But, contrary to the Bush/McCain position, the conditions for staying in Iraq are the prerogative of the duly elected Iraqi government and Parliament, not ours.

Technically, we are in Iraq today under a U.N. mandate recognizing us as an "occupying power," with specific duties and responsibilities. That "authority," which does NOT take a stand on whether or not we had the right to invade in the first place, runs out at the end of the year and is to be replaced with one of three courses of action: 1) a U.S.-Iraqi agreement on status of forces (preferred by all and the subject of Maliki's comments), 2) an extension of the U.N. mandate on the U.S. as an "occupying force," or 3) nothing (least preferable). In other words, although it is hard to understand given the Presidential campaign and the "stay" Republican position versus the "go" Democratic position, "staying" in terms of legality within the context of international law, isn't OUR decision to make. As a sovereign state, the Iraqis make that decision, not the United States.

This is an important point in distinquishing between the McCain position and the Obama positions on Iraq. If McCain defines "winning" as the establishment of a pro-U.S., anti-radical fundamentalist Islamic state, then this is merely an extension of the Bush Doctrine, that led us in in the first place and pretty much a continuance of the neo-conservative arguments. This definition of "winning" may indeed be a legitimate "goal" of U.S. foreign policy, but it is not a legitimate reason to continue as an occupying force.

In sum, "going" is our decision. "Staying" is an Iraqi decision. Staying to win, for duty, honor, country is misleading, deceiving and simply "disengaged" from the reality of our situation.

Hmmm? That point might be worth making in another Guest Commentary piece in the local paper.

Meanwhile, Congressional oversight hearings, re-started by a Democratic Congress that has enough votes for exposure, but lacks the votes for change, continue. I've listened to literally days of Administration testimony, from the Federal Aviation Administration, to the Food and Drug Administration, to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, to the Department of Energy, to the Department of Veterans Affairs, to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, to the Department of Homeland Security, etc., etc. There is a theme running through the testimony, namely "no money." Yes, we'd like to make air traffic safer. Yes, we'd like to be able to make our food and drugs safe. Yes, we'd like to ensure safe toys from China. Yes, we'd like to have a comprehensive energy policy. Yes, we wish we could do more for our Veterans. And, on and on. No one seems to tie Bush tax cuts and the expense of the Iraq war to agency failures at home.

And, of course, this was the week the Senate Intelligence Committee, six years late and roughly a trillion dollars or so short, issued its findings into the Bush ad campaign for the war in Iraq. This was promptly followed by Dennis Kisinich's introduction of a resolution for impeachment in the House of Representatives. The closest we'll come to that was the reading (once by Kisinich and once by the House clerks) of the 35 page resolution on the floor of the House. The resolution now goes to the Judiciary Committee, where it will stay until Bush is out of office.