Republicans vote Down Webb Plan for Troops;
Al-Maliki Accuses Blackwater
Iraqi guerrillas killed four US troops on Tuesday.
Republican senators succeeded in blocking the Webb plan to give US troops off as much time between deployments as they spent in Iraq. The Bush administration managed successfully to lobby Senate Republicans to defeat the measure, which would have resulted in a reduction of the number of US forces in the field (or a big increase in the use of National Guard units). The Dems needed 60 in the Senate to get a consensus, and could only muster 56. They could not, in any case, have over-ridden a presidential veto, which veto Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had urged on W.
This sort of outcome underlines my point last week that the Democrats in Congress are unlikely to be able to force significant troop drawdowns before Bush goes out of office. See below for an important argument that at least they should try to mandate preparations for troop withdrawals (preparations that appear not to have been made, much to the annoyance of a lot of endangered Americans in Iraq, including those in the Green Zone). I know some readers favor a sort of Democratic Gingrichism, using power over the budget to shut down the Defense Department, but realistically speaking such a strategy would likely boomerang big time and might well cost the Democrats the next election. The Republicans would blame every American death in Iraq on them from now to the election, on grounds of their 'irresponsibility.' They would be accused of being allies of 'al-Qaeda in Iraq,' helping kill US troops by defunding them in the face of a vicious enemy. Sitting Democrats in Congress are just not going to go this route, folks, and if they did they likely wouldn't be sitting there much longer. (All of the House of Representatives has to face the voters every two years!) I don't know why proponents of this tactic don't recognize that the war will actually be much prolonged if the Democrats act in ways that may rehabilitate the electoral chances of the Republicans in '08. At the least, it is a chance that has to be taken into serious account.
My guess is, the Republicans will go on standing up for an increasingly unpopular war until November, '08 and will take a bath. And then the new Democratic administration will swiftly move to draw down the troops, with most out by the end of 2009. This scenario contains extreme dangers for the Democrats, since 2010 could then be a very, uh, interesting year in the Middle East.
McClatchy reports that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has suspended the license of Blackwater to operate in Iraq while it is under investigation for recklessly killing civilians. Al-Maliki pointed to seven discrete incidents. An aide said that the Americans seemed shocked that the Iraqis were making a stand on the issue. Apparently sympathy with Iraqis about their innocent civilians being shot up by cowboys hired by a private American firm is not widespread in the Green Zone.
One experienced reader wrote me that the Iraqi government stance is reasonable, that foreign security guards should be accountable in some legal system. If Iraq cannot try them (by virtue of a fiat issued by American Viceroy Paul Bremer), and if they are not all Americans and so can't all be tried in US domestic courts, then they are essentially operating beyond the reach of any court of law. That situation is unacceptable to anyone who cares about the rule of law.
By the way, complaints about the immunity of foreigners to prosecution in local courts (called 'extra-territoriality' by historians) were among the grievances that fueled the Khomeini movement in Iran from the 1960s (servicemen on bases in Iran had such immunity, and Khomeini used the unpopularity of this injury to national sovereignty to whip up anti-American sentiment). Paul Bremer and Donald Rumsfeld appear not to have learned any lessons from all that.
The US Congress may attempt to intervene by passing legislation on accountability for private US firms operating in Iraq. There are some 180,000 private individual contractors in Iraq, mostly working for US firms or subcontracting from the US government.
In Wednesday's violence, there was a significant firefight between guerrillas and the Iraqi military in Mosul, car bombs in Baghdad, Kirkuk and Muqdadiya, and assorted other mayhem."LUKoil will have an advantage in a new tender for the West Qurna-2 field in Iraq
, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said, Interfax reported Wednesday. LUKoil's investments and work at the field will be taken into consideration should the oil producer bid, Zebari said, Interfax reported. "
That's why Americans are dying in Iraq?
The Iranians have released Kian Tajbakhsh from prison.
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 9/20/2007 12:33:00 AM
|
Facebook
25 Comments:
Don't non-regular fighters have a name under U.S. legal jargon at the moment? They sound a lot like enemy combatants, except I suppose they're getting paid to play. Though the Iraqis can't hold U.S. contractors in prisons for an indefinite amount of time.
The Democrats seem to suffer from the same lack of clarity of purpose Bush suffers from. Is the draw-down meant to achieve the same results with less resources, or to compromise some of the objectives?
We do not know because the objectives are not mentioned in any precise way. Their leaders mumble about training the Iraqi forces; fighting terrorists; and protecting America's “vital interest” in Iraq. These can all be refuted easily.
1)Unlike occupation, the resources needed to train troops are tiny and can be offered by great many nations. People who speak the language; know the customs; and do not suffer from Exceptionalism delusions. The American have had such appalling results so far, they should be excluded anyway.
2)There “terrorists” in Iraq came with the Americans. People who are fighting the occupation are not terrorists, and will cease when the troops leave. Occupying to fight anti-occupation forces is bizarre. As for fighting al-Qaeda, the only big successes came from the Iraqis, who already have a third of a million people in the armed forces, and can afford to buy the heavy weapons and logistics the US presence is depriving them of now.
3)What are the “vital interests”? How does that give you the right to occupy? Spell it out.
I agree with you, Dr. Cole, that Congressional Democrats cannot take the approach of denying funds to the troops. Let this war become THE REPUBLICAN WAR. Let it hang around their callous necks like an albatross. Reid and Pelosi should continue to support all bills that would demand a new approach to the situation in Iraq. The Mainstream Media insists on framing all defeats as a Democratic defeat, without mentioning the abhorrent obstructionism of the Republicans. Attention needs to be drawn to this particular spin. I will be writing CNN about it, and so should others. Nevertheless, the War in Iraq MUST become the millstone that drags the Republican Party down into its own black and destructive depths. The votes are just not there for constructive change. The Republicans are insistant on marching in lockstep with Bush. However, that does not absolve the Democrats from maintaining a concerted effort to stop the war. They cannot stop it now, but they must keep up the pressure; and show their resolve. That is the point Ms. Pelosi seems to ignore.Thomas Merton wrote that it never ceased to amaze him how our own sins punish us. Let the evil of this war, it's horrors of death and destruction, be firmly and conspicuously attached to the Republican Party. Let every American know how much it has cost in lives, in suffering,and in tax dollars that should have been spent on domestic programs. George W. Bush and Richard Cheney wanted this war for oil and war-profiteering. They and the Republican Party insist on its continuation. Let them pay the price for it.
I'm a Leftist Democrat, completely against this IraqAtaq since before the beginning, but, aren't we supposed to imagine that Iraq is a country after we leave? That there will be embassies, ours and others, trying to operate in a civil war. I believe it can be done, and must be done. The Al-Queda will be eliminated early, and the Sunni/Shiite?Kurd will rarely shoot at national level foreigners, diplomats, etc. I think we may be obligated to provide that green zone for the international community, and also insure a safe drive to a safe airport. That may be our burden, but it can be done. Why is this never covered?
The CPA Order you refer to -- CPA Order 17 -- was recently rescinded. Blackwater case will test whether this means that Iraqi courts actually now have control over their country.
Mr Cole,
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it does not make it true! 60 votes to pass a bill (or to bring it to a vote) IS NOT THE SAME as NOT passing a bill.
In order for the war to be funded, A BILL MUST BE PASSED! If the repuglicans have enough votes to block a bill, surely the dems do also
Rick
I wonder whether the non-American Blackwater mercenaries can be tried in the international court in den Hague?
I also wonder, whether the Iraqi government could cancel Bremer's fiat?
As Kununich has made clear, the Democrats could just let the current funding run out and then block the introduction of another defense-spending bill to the floor, effectively cutting off funds and forcing an immediate withdrawal. So, they don't, in fact, need to get republican support to pass any bills or to override any vetoes. They can just do nothing. Unfortunately, they can't even do that. If the Democrats were a *real* opposition party that represents the will of their constituents they would have already implemented this maneuver. They, however, are no better than the republicans, as should be evident from the Democratic Senators unanimous support for Lieberman's de facto declaration of war against Iran. http://iranlegislation.wikispaces.com/space/showimage/DAV07990_xml.pdf
Occupation soldiers, mercenaries, expatriate businessmen, and diplomats always face hazard in any altercation with local inhabitants. Local jurisdiction or due process is not reliable. The witnesses will generally side against the foreigner and the judge might suffer revenge if a foreigner is found innocent. Furthermore, there can be no local statute that allows a foreign soldier to carry a weapon or use it against a local person, for any reason.
The expatriate businessman has little or no extraterritoriality or immunity, but usually gets paid for the hazard. Soldiers and diplomats get relatively little material incentive for the hazards, and so need some degree of immunity. A bad diplomat gets expelled as "non grata." A bad soldier faces a court martial.
Mercentaries fall into a gray area, perhaps not much different from the legal sphere of the tribal and sectarian militias, or the armed guards used by the parliamentarians. Licenses? All could paraphrase the immortal lines of Alfonso "Red Hat" Bedoya: "Licenses? We don't need no stinkin' licenses."
Where is the proof, or even the evidence that the American people would oppose cutting funding for the troops?
Where is the evidence or the proof that a Democratic policy of withholding new funding until a withdrawal schedule has been made would be unpopular?
"We'll give all the funding you want as soon as you publicize a withdrawal schedule"
What makes you think the American people wouldn't understand or buy that?
If the Democrats don't do anything like this, how will they run as an anti-war party in 2008?
Gingrich in the early nineties faced an American population that favored a lot of government programs. The democrats today face an American population that opposes the war.
It is a big enough difference that we can't just assume that a budget shutdown would boomerang without at least polls that say that, or better, a failed attempt at selling the idea to the American people.
Seems to me that the Iraqis can treat the Blackwater mercenaries as "ENEMY COMBATANTS" just like our President has chosen to deal with non-uniformed fighters captured in Afghanistan and Iraq. Lock them up, torture them, grant them no rights...
Apparently that's what our leadership intends, being against Habeus Corpus and the international rule of law under the Geneva conventions.
These mercenary soldiers are being paid very well to take an excessive risk. If the Bush Administration does not reign them in, they deserve to be tried by the Iraqis for their war crimes.
ref : “Republicans will go on standing up for an increasingly unpopular war until November, '08 and will take a bath. And then the new Democratic administration will swiftly move to draw down the troops, with most out by the end of 2009...”
imho, redeployment of American ground forces is inevitable, simply because the U.S. cannot sustain the treasure cost and now compounding decay of military effectiveness. otoh, almost no one in Congress, including the Democratic Party Leadership ~ is talking about ending the occupation of IRAQ (or for that matter, Afghanistan; or indeed, CENTCOM quite significant base = de facto ‘occupations’ of Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, etc.)
in my opinion political leaders in The States have at least two quite powerful self-interests pulling them away from the majority will of the American electorate: (1) the ‘coalition of corporations’ being for the benefit of what, ~$10 billion USD per month fiscal stimulus; and, (2) the strange confluence of AIPAC = Israeli and OPEC = Saudi geopolitical interests ~ and political influences, thus ~ on both Republican and Democratic political parties.
Cholera reaches Baghdad NYT
"but realistically speaking such a strategy would likely boomerang big time and might well cost the Democrats the next election."
If the dems don't stop this war, they deserve to lose the next election.
And I would like to point out that there is no STATED objectives in this invasion and occupation of Iraq - however, that does not mean they are not there.
And the dems know what they are and continue to play along.
Susan
Dr. Cole, I agree with most of what you say here but not your inference that the Republicans' prospects for 2008 are currently moribund. I'm sorry, but they aren't. I'm a Democratic strategist with my base in the Battleground States, and I can tell you that the Republicans' prospects in 2008 are if anything better than they were in 2004.
This is largely due to two words: Hillary Clinton. She is so roundly reviled by the Republicans that she's the one guaranteed unifier that the GOP has. Add to that the skepticism about the prospect of having the Clintons in for yet another 4 years, the aversion to dynasties here, not to mention the preference for a divided government now w/o the Democrats controlling the Executive and the Legislature, and you can see why the Democrats are on some shaky ground.
Hillary is also very unpopular with much of her own Democratic base, owing in no small part to Iraq ironically, and also to her support of outsourcing and the H1-B visa-- truly one of the stupidest political stands she's ever taken, and one which is costing her the crucial support of labor unions and skilled workers who hate these policies with an indescribable passion.
The solution for the Dems? Nominate someone other than Hillary-- Obama or Edwards would be good choices. Either one would trounce any Republican in 2008. In fact, in the polls out these days, Hillary already loses to Giuliani (despite the GOP being at a relative nadir and before they've even gone onto the attack) while Obama and particularly Edwards thrash him.
One of the surprising and very worrisome things I've encountered doing pollster work in the Midwest, is that Giuliani has the added advantage of being seen as a Beltway outsider while Hillary is seen as an insider and if anything, even more responsible for Iraq than Giuliani. (Obama is also an insider technically speaking, but doesn't seem to provoke that "insider perception" as much-- Edwards is not in office and with even more of an outsider's edge.)
And again, Hillary's support of outsourcing and the H1-B is killing her in these crucial states.
Plus, I'd be cautious about interpreting how the Iraq situation plays out over a year from now, especially if the Democrats commit hara-kiri once again and nominate Hillary. None of the major Democrats wants a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, and even the Bush Administration is even moving toward some kind of gradual, phased withdrawal. (Ironically, the Democrats' failures in Congress on Iraq, caused in part by Republicans there, are also making them very unpopular-- even more unpopular than Bush-- and hurting them at all levels.) This blurs the lines enough to at least partially neutralize Iraq as a truly distinguishing issue.
In short, as I've come to appreciate to my own dismay, the 2008 Presidential election is definitely not in the bag for the Democrats, not even close. And if the Dems go stupid again and nominate Hillary, then the Republicans win in 2008. But if Obama or Edwards is nominated, then the Democrats win. That's the heart of it.
The moral choice would be to cut the funding and force an immediate withdrawal.
The immoral, but politically savvy move would be to do just as Dr. Cole describes.
That's the really crappy thing about maintaining power...you end up with blood all over your hands. Just ask Macbeth and his Lady.
complaints about the immunity of foreigners to prosecution in local courts
Also see "Rambouillet".
I know some readers favor a sort of Democratic Gingrichism, using power over the budget to shut down the Defense Department, but realistically speaking such a strategy would likely boomerang big time and might well cost the Democrats the next election. The Republicans would blame every American death in Iraq on them from now to the election, on grounds of their 'irresponsibility.' They would be accused of being allies of 'al-Qaeda in Iraq,' helping kill US troops by defunding them in the face of a vicious enemy.
I don't agree with your analysis. Here's mine.
1. If the spineless Democrats don't even try to stop the war -- if they keep giving Bush the money he asks for without qualifications -- then they will end up owning the war along with the Republicans and sharing the blame for additional American deaths.
2. If they try to stop the war, but fail and fail again, then the Republicans are painted the sole owners of the war, and responsible for the American deaths, lock stock and barrel.
3. If the Democrats succeed in stopping the war sooner, they will have provably saved American lives and can feel good about it. Frankly, that's more important than anything else. And you give the American people too little credit. I think they'll see through the Republican rhetoric.
Cole: I don't know why proponents of this tactic don't recognize that the war will actually be much prolonged if the Democrats act in ways that may rehabilitate the electoral chances of the Republicans in '08.
Cole believes that if elected, a Democrat will end the war. What is the evidence for that belief?
In fact, the claim that the Democrats will end the war is provably false. On their own words, and on the nature of the forseeable political environment, all likely Democratic candidates intend to leave troops in Iraq indefinitely.
This is an absolutely fundamental point. If the Democrats will not end the war, then we must recognize that the Democrats should be spurned as another arm of the corporatist, pro-War party, and in their place support independent candidates such as Cindy Sheehan. Another possibility would be for large numbers of Democrats to switch to the Republican Party and vote for the genuinely antiwar Ron Paul as a desperation tactic.
The evidence that the Democrats will never end the occupation of Iraq and bring this war to a close:
Hillary Clinton: "But as Sen. Hillary Clinton privately told a senor military adviser, she knows there will be some troops there for decades. It's an example of how in some cases, politics can force dishonesty." (as reported on NPR)
John Edwards: "There will be Marine guards there, just like there are at our embassies in London, Riyadh, and Tokyo. And just the same, if American civilians are providing humanitarian relief to the Iraqi people, we're going to protect them." (The American Embassy in Iraq, intended as the seat of power for the neocolonial US occupation, is the largest such in the world and requires many thousands of troops.)
Barack Obama: "We can't totally disengage from Iraq any more than we can disengage with any other part of the world. And we've got both strategic interests and humanitarian interests in the region, but what my plan calls for would continue to involve US troops protecting a US embassy and US personnel there, and US troops who are able to strike at terrorist targets inside Iraq..."
-frizzled
It's bipartisan genocide, this Iraqi Holocaust, and has been since before the first Gulf War. Overall, the US government has opressed the people of the Middle East for decades, and its policies have killed millions. If I can see and know this, and understand the gross immorality, what's wrong with everyone else?
The Media has "nominated" Hillary Clinton. Millions of people have not. If she tanks in the primaries,as I fervently hope she does, let that be the end of her aspirations this time around. She is far too polarizing; and people ARE sick of dynasties. However, the corporate-owned media salivate at the thought of dragging out all that dirty linen and rehashing the Clinton years, ad nauseum. Just look at how beserk they have gone over O.J. again. Their motto is: "If it made bucks once, it will make them again." Hillary has already stated she intends to keep military forces in Iraq for some time to come. Obviously, the woman doesnt pay any more attention to the problems that will cause than the Bush Cabal.
As for why most Americans cannot understand the mess our government has caused in the Middle East, one need only look at the fact that the majority of Americans get their information from the Mainstream Media. They glance at a few headlines, doze through the evening news, and rush to the Mall in their SUV. Trying to understand the complexities of that part of the world would force them to venture far beyond their comfort zone. It would require the art of critical thinking and analysis. For a populace that "elected" George W. Bush twice, to expect logic of them is a stretch. This is one reason why the politicians in D.C. are comfortable with their 11% approval rating. They figure the general population can easily be sold another load of snake-oil when the time comes. Heat up a pot of fear-mongering, add a dash of homophobia, lower the interst rates a bit,cut some taxes somewhere, and voila, you win an election.
I absolutely agree with Carrus at 8:36. It can't be repeated enough. It's my worst nightmare.
Hillary would be the third, huge, strategic miscalculation the Democrats have made in as many presidential elections.
The first was Al Gore. Not that he was nominated. I mean the mistake he himself made by conceding the election. The first time. I'm speculating, but Al and the moderate Democrats have an unfortunate personality trait such that they are driven to be seen as "good sports", to the exclusion of good sense. Jeez, how that gets the Dems in trouble!
If Al hadn't conceded that night, if had held out until all the votes were counted, the result might have been different. Since he was ahead by millions in the popular vote, he would more likely have had the sympathies of the American public in waiting for the final answer. He gave away that advantage by conceding (and then retracting the concession), because in essence his concession signalled that the popular vote didn't really matter in any moral sense.
The second strategic mistake was nominating John Kerry. I won't rehash that one.
Professor Cole,
What do we risk by leaving?
--Higher oil prices?
I welcome $100 a barrel oil(it's coming anyways)!
We need to transition off of petroleum for a thousand reasons, including Peak Oil.
--The resentment of Saudi Arabia and Israel? The decline of US influence?
Who the hell is influencing whom!
The American people are the slaves of the American Empire which is the slaves of its interests!
A military defeat?
Nonsense.
Our 'defeat' is really just stupid suicide as in bleeding to death so slowly that we just barely notice it.
Even Bonzo(Reagan)wasn't that stupid and got out when went things went bad(Beirut).
As I remember before you said that the Democrats would get saddled with an endless war that would consume the next Democrat President. Why should democrats wait for that?
Most people remember when the plug got pulled in VietNam. The world didn't end. Now I hear from the pundits( and Bush) that Iraq will be FAR worse than VietNam, the previous worst-of-the-worse stab-in-the-back
betrayl,etc. or at least so said the Rightists. Would the casualties be greater than those so far?
Was the partition of India and Pakistan so horrid?
Now the anti-war is trying somekind of Gingerichism?
If Gingerichism is the philosophy that we don't need the government so we should shut it down, then yes, I say we don't need this war so we should shut it down. The difference is that Congress has the Constitutional duty to support government agencies which enforce the law in the case of 1996, while in the case of Iraq the Congress has the responsibility for funding and defunding this war.
I saw Faoud Adjami on Charlie Rose a while back rolling on his belly squealing that American influence is at an all time high in the Middle East.
I'm sorry I don't have to see anymore.
The jig is up.
Juan Cole is absolutely right.
The next Iraq war funding bill is not exclusively for the war; it's the annual Department of Defense funding budget, which contains a huge amount of Iraq war funding, as well as funding for every other military aspect of the government.
Any DoD bill that does not contain 100% of what Bush wants for the war will be filibustered and vetoed.
So, the Democrats have to choose one of two lousy choices:
1. Give exactly what Bush wants.
2. Shut down the entire military system (IE, pass no DoD budget at all).
Obviously, they will pick #1. Even if they did pick #2, the war wouldn't end, because, under the laws governing partial government shut downs, national security related or urgent or vital spending can still continue, under the old budget. Of course the Iraq war would qualify, at least according to the Bush administration (who gets to decide what qualifies). Any attempt to change said law would be filibustered and vetoed.
Even if that wasn't true, Congress can't order the troops home. Only the President can do that, and Bush won't, even if he had no way to pay or supply them.
The Iraq War will continue full speed ahead until some time after a Democrat becomes President.
Geotpf you are absolutely wrong. Congress can take up a budget that doesn't allow the money to be spent for continuing the war, only for winding the war down. Then they can see if the Republicans dare filibuster it. Then they can see if Bush dares to veto it.
The majority of the American people want to wind the war down. The Democrats are fools if they don't take advantage of it. The Republicans are fools if they try to obstruct it.
Post a Comment
<< Home