Ingrates, The Lot Of Them?

The other day the Geek ran across a site called "Fuck the French." It had a graphic showing British troops leaving a landing craft across a Normandy beach. The text on the graphic read, "Ingrates the lot of them."

Considering the current state of play over the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the US and Iraq, one might be tempted to say the same of the Iraqi government and people. After all, it may be argued, ill-advised as the invasion of Iraq might have been, the US and its allies did something for Iraqis that they were either unwilling or unable to do for themselves during the long years of the economic blockade. We got rid of Saddam.

So we did. And, so what?

Four years and a couple of months ago, George W. Bush made innumerable, nauseatingly misleading speeches regarding how Iraq was now a "sovereign" nation-state. His celebration of American (oops! Bad Geek! You should have written "Coalition") magnanimity in restoring Iraq to the Iraqis was wrong on multiple levels.

It is impossible for a country to be considered "sovereign" when its "government" was forced to operate under terms and conditions dictated by the "liberators" of the country. It struck the Geek that, for example, neither France nor Italy were "sovereign" in the aftermath of the Allied military operations which liberated both. Not until each had seen the end of both the Allied Military Government operations and the restrictions imposed upon the the indigenous successor regimes were Italy and France sovereign in any meaningful sense of the word.

Then, of course, in 2004 there was a war in progress. It is difficult, not to say impossible, for a tenuous newly created "government" to act in a sovereign way with a war in progress. The same was true in South Vietnam during our war there. Coups, countercoups and elections came and went in sometimes bewildering succession. Throughout all changes in "sovereign" South Vietnamese governments, the tune was both called for and played by Washington through its military and diplomatic representatives in-country.

The US military and its civilian contractors were in effective occupation of much of Iraq not only in 2004 but down to the present. How can anyone maintain with a straight face that a government has "sovereignty" when an outside regime controls the most potent force in the territory? Apparently George W. Bush was either capable of such a level of self-delusion or he is such a master at deception that he had no difficulty making the assertion.

Finally, and most basically, there is the question of what constitutes "Iraq" and "Iraqi sovereignty?"

There are three nations cohabiting within a set of international borders. There are Kurds. There are Sunnis. There is the Shiite majority. No one has ever accused the three nations of loving, or even liking, or most minimally, trusting each other.

The Shiites have maintained that as they are the majority population, Iraqi sovereignty should be defined and controlled by them. The Sunnis, having been the governing minority through the years of British occupation and post-occupation independence, see themselves as being best fitted by experience--tradition--to define and exercise sovereignty.

The Kurds take the justifiable position that as they are ethnically and linguistically different from the Arabs, they must exercise sovereignty over their portion of Iraq--with or without the agreement of the Arabs. The Kurds territory is compact, reasonably well defined and economically viable. Not surprisingly, they see no real need for an entity called "Iraq" unless it is to the best advantage of the Kurds.

The Kurds have made their understanding of Kurdish sovereignty clear. Last week the Kurd leader Barzani offered "Kurdistan" to the Americans as a basing option should the Iraqi central regime fail to authorize the SOFA in a timely fashion.

Equally unshocking was the immediate rejection of the Kurd's position by the Iraqi president. Quite correctly he saw such a course as leading to the energetic disassembly of Iraq.

Now, not only has the Iraqi central government taken the unprecedented action of bicycling the proposed SOFA to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria and Turkey, the Sunni Vice-President has proposed a national referendum on the issue. This proposal, on its face, is preposterous. The SOFA must be in force by 1 January 09 or the US must halt all military operations. Given the Iraqi record in such matters, the possibility of holding a national vote between now and then is as likely Iran granting diplomatic recognition to Israel.

The Iraqi political/religious elite is more than slightly ticklish on the matter of sovereignty. The US should acknowledge that.

The best way to give full and authentic recognition to Iraq as a fully sovereign state is to pull our forces out as quickly and cleanly as possible after 1 January next year. We have achieved the minimum necessary strategic goal of not-losing. The Iraqis are in control of what (for the moment at least) is their territory. Wish 'em luck and get out.

Sure, the place may fall apart as the last American boot leaves Iraqi soil. That's a chance the Iraqis seem willing to take. There is nothing to be gained by either second guessing them or insisting that we stay under whatever terms and conditions it may please Baghdad to offer us.

Sure, the possibility of Iraq falling into chaos renders nugatory the more than four thousand Americans who have died died there since our adventure in regime change started. But, it didn't bother either the American public or its representatives in Congress (some of whom are still there) to write off fifteen times that number in the Vietnam War.

What the hell, we can always mutter, "Ingrates, the lot of them."