Deputy Oil Minister Wounded;
Iraq Likely to tie down Next President
Guerrillas deployed a bomb to wound Iraq's deputy oil minister on Monday morning.
Steven R. Hurst at AP correctly argues that if there is no Status of Forces Agreement between Iraq and the US by January 1, the resulting military and diplomatic mess could end up consuming the new president. For US troops to operate without an internationally accepted legal framework would expose them to prosecution for their military actions in Iraq.
The looming disaster is one reason that even the grossly incompetent Bush administration is at least considering a Plan B. That is to go back to the UN Security Council for an extension of its mandate for US and allied troops to act in Iraq.
Bob Dreyfuss at The Nation wonders whether, if Obama is elected, he will get US troops out of Iraq on a short timetable.
The Iraqi government, having taken over responsibility for the 100,000 members of the Sunni Arab Awakening Councils or 'Sons of Iraq,' plans to reduce fighters' salaries from $300 a month (what the US had paid them) to only $250 a month. Informed observers predict that many of the Awakening members might well just resign. The big fear is that the councils could turn into anti-government Sunni guerrilla groups if Pm Nuri al-Maliki does no handle them well.
An Awakening tribal leader was killed by a bombing in Diyala Province on Sunday evening.
Al-Hayat writing in Arabic says that a political storm has broken out in Iraq over remarks by Kurdistan leader Massoud Barzani that Kurdistan might offer the US military bases if the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq as a whole gets stalled.
The Iraqi government has pledged $900 thousand to help Christians displaced by political violence from Mosul.
McClatchy reports political violence in Iraq on Sunday:
' Baghdad
- A roadside bomb detonated near a bus station in Mashtal neighborhood (east Baghdad). Two people were injured.
- A roadside bomb targeted a police patrol in Bab Al-Muatham neighborhood (downtown Baghdad). No casualties were reported, but a police vehicle was damaged.
- A roadside bomb targeted a police patrol in Wihda district of Karrada neighborhood (downtown Baghdad). Two people were injured including a policeman.
- A roadside bomb targeted a police patrol in Fudhailiyah neighborhood (east Baghdad). One policeman was killed and three others were wounded.
- Police found 2 dead bodies in Baghdad neighborhoods today: one was found in Saidiyah in Karkh bank (south Baghdad) and one was found in Zayuna in Rusafa bank (east Baghdad).
Diyala
- Gunmen attacked a house in Mansouriyah in the town of Moqdadiyah (northeast of Baquba). The gunmen were wearing the Iraqi army uniform. They killed a woman and two of her daughters. Two other daughters were injured.
- A roadside bomb targeted a Sahwa leader in Buhriz (3 miles south of Baquba). The leader was killed with five others who were with him in his car (two women and three children).
Kirkuk
- A roadside bomb detonated in Hawija district (west of Kirkuk). Three people were injured.
- Gunmen kidnapped a girl of about to 14 years in Aysalana village in the Hawija district (west of Kirkuk).
- Gunmen wearing the Iraqi army uniform kidnapped three Kurdish truck drivers near the Sleiman Beck check point (south of Kirkuk).
- An adhesive bomb detonated under a civilian car in Kirkuk city. The driver of the car, who works in an Iraqi military base, was injured.
- Two children were killed and two others were injured by a deserted bomb as it detonated when they were playing nearby in Khadhra neighborhood in downtown Kirkuk city.'
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 11/03/2008 12:23:00 AM
|
Facebook
10 Comments:
Barzani and Talabani have always called openly for US bases in the Kurdish area. But untill recently the siting was purely a US choice and they have declined to oblige. The US already has massive bases in NATO member Turkey across the border, with sea access and a good road network. Moreover, they know that the Kurds want them there to back up their colonial ambitions, and the US soldiers will not give their lives for that.
Thr Americans want bases in Iraq because it is a major Arab country whose weight by far exceeds its size and population. There is no shortage of American bases in the area, in Kuwait; Qatar; Oman and others, but they function as purely military facilities, and do not serve as Imperial presence. Compare the British presence in Cyprus now with that in India until its independence for example.
The controversy now is further evidence about the decline of US influence, and the status of its Iraqi allies (although the Kurdish warlords do not really consider themselves Iraqis.)
Steven R. Hurst at AP correctly argues that if there is no Status of Forces Agreement between Iraq and the US by January 1, the resulting military and diplomatic mess could end up consuming the new president. For US troops to operate without an internationally accepted legal framework would expose them to prosecution for their military actions in Iraq.
So why don't they just leave Iraq and come home NOW!?
The Robert Dreyfuss you sent us to asks :
If Obama wins, he will face enormous pressure to abandon his pledge to stop the war in Iraq. That pressure will come from some within his own circle of advisers, many of whom saw Obama's antiwar stance as good politics but bad policy. It will come from hawkish Democrats outside Obama's circle, from those elbowing their way to get in, typified by Richard Holbrooke, who found himself shut out of Obamaland after he endorsed Hillary Clinton in the primaries. It may come from more hawkish Democrats close to Senator Biden, who voted for the Iraq war in 2002. It will certainly come from conservatives, neoconservatives, and the editorial pages of the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. It will come from thinktanks such as the Brookings Institution and the Center for a New American Security, which have close ties both to Obama and to the Democratic establishment.
It sounds like Juan Cole will be a part of that circle of enormous pressure urging him to "abandon his pledge to stop the war in Iraq" :
The looming disaster is one reason that even the grossly incompetent Bush administration is at least considering a Plan B. That is to go back to the UN Security Council for an extension of its mandate for US and allied troops to act in Iraq.
Obama never pledged to stop the war in Iraq.
Obama is about the continued Occupation of Iraq; the escalation of the war in Afghanistan; the opening of a new front in Pakistan, which George Bush has made his own policy; and an eye peeled for a chance to attack Iran.
Obama will be elected on a wing away from the Republican regime and a prayer that somehow he won't do what he's promised to do.
I think that Juan Cole is just reminding us all of what Barack Obama has promised to do.
And offering his support in advance for a policy when it is not only "not going to be apparent that we're right", in Joe Biden's words, but going to be glaringly apparent that it's just plain wrong in the eyes of most of the people who voted for him.
Thanks for the AP link to Hurst article; it was interesting to see how Americans are rewriting history :
The agreement, which would not have the force of a treaty and would not require ratification by the U.S. Senate, is designed to replace the U.N. resolution under which American forces invaded Iraq and are allowed to be in the country. The new pact became necessary after Iraq said it would no longer seek annual renewal of the U.N. mandate.
The US aggressive invasion wasn't allowed by any UN resolution. It was clearly a war crime. The actual resolution was just and after the fact resolution, trying to put some limits to the US presence in Iraq.
Hurst : If Iraq refuses a deal by year's end, the roughly 150,000 American forces in Iraq would have no legal mandate to be in the country, and the Bush administration has warned Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that it would immediately pull troops back to U.S. bases.
Well : why should they only retire to their bases ? If there is no SOFA, no proloungation of the UNSC resolution, then the US troops should withdraw. There won't be any "legal base" (fig leave) left for them to even stay in Iraq.
US GO HOME - Why didn't you learn that from the Vietnam years ?
If Obama is clever, he will seize this opportunity to extract the US troops from this cataclismic disaster without harming the Democrates too much : because it would be clear that the Bush administration having failed to negotiate a SOFA, the Rep have created a legal situation where the Dems could only organize an ordently withdrawal of Iraq. This is probably the last chance Obama will have to withdraw the US troops of Iraq without too much shame for the US. If in complement, the US pays due compensation to Iraqis and adopt a more multilateral approach to the post occupation situation, then things may not turn out too bad for the Iraqi either.
Washington Times article:
so now US experts are threatening Iraqis that, if we leave, you will have to run your own country.
If we are forced to pull out, we can no longer provide roaming gangs of Mercenaries to provide security.
Nation article:
Obama was anti-war in the primaries, not so much in the general election.
If he wins, he has a mandate to address economic or health care issues.
In 2012 he will run on his secret plan to end the war.
" For US troops to operate without an internationally accepted legal framework would expose them to prosecution for their military actions in Iraq."
I'm surprised by the continual fretting about SOFA. No doubt President Obama will quickly arrive at some agreement consistent with his goal of disengaging from this mess. In the meantime, nothing changes. Who would prosecute US troops? There is no prosecutorial body in this galactic neighborhood that has the power and authority to prosecute the Empire. Ain't gonna happen. No matter what.
Dear mr Cole,
As an avid reader of your post since 2003, may I draw your attention to an article in al-Hayat today on the separate shia electoral lists for the coming elections. There is more on the website of the election commission (www.ihec.iq)
I would suggest that the Bush Admin would, at this point, prefer the UN method as it doesn't come with the strings/restraints that the SOFA has accumulated. The UN mandate doesn't explicitly bar (unjustified) action against Syria or Iran. The UN mandate doesn't place contractors or soldiers under Iraqi jurisdiction in legal disputes.
With the demands from the Iraqi government on what would be an acceptable SOFA, the Bushies should see a UN mandate extension as their best option.
For US troops to operate without an internationally accepted legal framework would expose them to prosecution for their military actions in Iraq.
Sure, when pigs fly. Iraq is already one huge war crime, with widespread illegal incarceration, persecution, torturing, injuring and killing and there has been little prosecution (Lynndie England, etc.) but I suppose the "internationally accepted legal framework" made it all okay.
Gee....It's Election Eve, and still no SOFA. What a surprise: Only 57 more days. Then US troops' and its allies' status will revert to their initial Naked Agression and thus ILLEGAL--and proper--status. The Kurd offering sanctuary was expected, and will only serve to stregthen Iraqi resolve to regain control over its Northern region. I think it a safe bet that US troop status come innauguration day--January 20, 2009--will be illegal.
I predict they will get their "new" UN mandate and Obama will withdraw some US troops. And in four years, a large number (like over 50K) will still be there. And Iraq will still be a living hell.
And meanwhile, Pakistanis have started protesting Obama this past weekend. Picture at my blog:
http://dancewater.blogspot.com
Post a Comment
<< Home