Solving the mess in Iraq

Remove all ads!

I think that's a little far-fetched, Chandos. Actually, scratch that -- that's a LOT far-fetched. I'm no Bush fan anymore but come on -- even invading Iran would not give him sufficient leverage to declare some sort of half-baked state of emergency and hold on to power indefinitely.

 

The only time you can disobey an order is when you are ordered to do something illegal. You'll be court marshalled otherwise.

Here's an interesting tidbit. The Iraqi government is asking the US government when exactly they are planning on leaving.

 

LKD - I agree, and I think it's unlikely, but I would not put something like that past them.

 

Shaman: Aldeth and LDK are right on the mark. Commissioned Officers are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States -- as such, they are required by law to disobey any order that goes against the Constitution. Enlisted personnel are sworn to obey the orders of officers appointed over them, with an important caveat that the orders must be "lawful orders." A lawful order must be in agreement with the Constitution and the rules and regulations of the appropriate military branch.

An officer that gives an unlawful order is held accountable for that order and may be tried by court-martial. An enlisted member who follows an unlawful order is also held accountable and tried by court-martial or receive non-judicial punishment.

There is a slight distinction between illegal and unlawful here: illegal implies the individuals knew they were doing wrong. The term unlawful does not require any knowledge of wrongdoing and charges often are phrased "known or should have known to be an unlawful order."

Aldeth: I was interested in that article as well. From the various articles I've read, the Iraqis are pushing for a soft deadline of five years. They appear to want a date with the ability to extend or shorten the deadline dependant on how well the transition process is going. Bush does not want to put any date in writing, only objectives. I can see Bush's point -- if dates are set, the US will most likely pull out whether or not the Iraqis are ready (that's just the nature of a mammoth bureaucracy like the US government).

 

T2,
Bush wants the US to stay in Iraq even after Iraq 'is ready' *. His intent is to create 'facts on the ground' that will bind his successor to his policies. If Bush get's an SoFA his successor will be bound to that for the duration of his entire term, so that the US will stay in Iraq for the next half decade or so at least. If he withdraws anyway, he will be accused of 'losing Iraq'. The Bush crowd still views Iraq as a launching pad for future campaigns. Also, a SoFA will bind the Iraqis for the next half decade or so.

And it is utterly clear that the Iraqis are pushing for a deadline because they want to frame US policy making in that regard and don't share Bush's goals. They want a "memorandum of understanding" precisely because is not a treaty and has zero legal effect, giving them the option to call for the US to leave at any time.
And the Iraqis are perfectly aware of what a SoFA means: There has never been a treaty of alliance signed and ratified between the US and an Islam dominated state. There are various Foreign Military Sales and Training agreements but no treaties of alliance. That includes Saudi Arabia and the UAE. That is that culture thing again. I do not think that Iraq will surprise by being the exception.

That would then be the Bush crowd's primary problem - I doubt they will want make the decision for the US to leave dependent on the will of little people, the Iraqis, and their domestic policies. The US are a superpower after all. Bush's interests in Iraq transcend Iraqi wishes and interests **.

What I am still uncertain about is just how much Maliki's demands are meant to drive up the amount of US, err, blandishments. In any case, the point where Maliki will not negotiate at all is that Iraqi territory or airspace must not be used for an attack on Iran.


* whatever that means: If it means western style democracy then it certainly is an illusion; also, will the Iraqis have a word in defining what to be 'ready' means?
** and probably reality. Is ignoring the Iraqis feasible in the mid term? As of lately, Arabs have shown themselves sort-of uppity and displayed a tendency to take things in their own hands and act violently when they're are angry. One can find self-assertion in defiance and resistance.

 

Here's another thing in the article. Miliki wants the agreement to include a provision that U.S. soldiers would no longer be immune to Iraqi law. If they won't budge on that, we'll be leaving very soon.

But here's another point - all I've heard about over the last few months - mostly from Republicans no less - is that the surge is working and violence is down in Iraq. Wasn't that the point? So why can't we start bringing our boys home?

 

If the soldiers leave, any progress that has been made will likely be lost. That's probably the justification for the US staying there. That reason can be used tomorrow, five days from now, five years from now and probably five decades from now.

I would argue that the main purpose of the US in all its activities in the Middle East is relative stability in the region so as to ensure a steady flow of oil (I realize that this assertion is not excatly new or original, but let me finish!) I would also venture that the crux of most of Ragusa's position is that the policies the Americans are taking are not achieving that goal very well. That may be so, but my question is, would things be better or worse if the Americans pulled out now? I believe that the region would descend into chaos, but then that's just my belief -- I am not God and do not claim to infallibly know the future. No one else on these boards or anywhere else can make that claim either. To be honest, if the US would put some of that vaunted (deservedly so, mind you) ingenuity to work, they could pull out, leave the region to its (possible) chaos for the next several decades, and just take care of it's own issues without regard for Middle Eastern oil. But that would entail lifestyle changes for the American populace that would be tough for pampered Westerners (myself included!) to swallow.

Plus, the humanitarians would scream blue murder about all the suffering that would likely occur should the chaos I am discussing ensue.

As for American soldiers being immune to Iraqi law, I can imagine if they were subject to Iraqi law there would be a flood of accusations (valid and not) that would pretty well paralyze operations over there. However, I am not comfortable with the idea that an American soldier or Blackwater employee can rape and/or kill with impunity. The American answer would likely be "we'll make sure that doesn't happen -- trust us!" but if I were an Iraqi I'd be less than satisfied with that response. There must be some sort of middle ground, but blasted if I can find it.

[Edit] Oh, I guess I should mention, the US doesn't want TOO much stability there because a strong and large government in the region might act contrary to American interests and also restrict the oil flow. The Americans are treading a fine, fine line, to quote Avenue Q.

 

The punishment a US soldier would receive under the UCMJ for such things is actually quite severe. In most cases, the UCMJ is far more severe and restrictive than the US penal code, so it is more than sufficient for the purposes of keeping US troops in line or, at least making sure that the host nation in which our soldiers commit crimes will consider justice served with no need for the intervention of their own legal system. The problem we auspiciously have in Iraq is civilian contractors, who aren't subject to the UCMJ or Iraqi law. The possible fixes for this would be to subject civillian contractors to the UCMJ* or Iraqi law**, create a UCMJ-like legal structure for civilian contractors in Iraq***, or to simply have actual soldiers do the soldiering in Iraq.

* Not bloody likely.
** Even less likely.
*** By the time we finish drafting a document that all the contracting companies currently in Iraq would agree with and appending all of those legally-binding contracts, assuming this would even be possible (if the contracting companies themselves don't balk, the actual contractors still could), would probably take far too long to be practical.

 

Yeah, when did the American military start contracting out? For that matter, when did the American government in general start contracting out. Back in the hey-day of the space age, the r&d work was done by NASA, wasn't it? And with all the problems the gov't is having with contractors between Katrina (a local one just got accused of cheating people ad gov't out of billions) and Iraq (Blackwater, anyone?), you would think they'd start doing these things themselves.

 

Aren't contractors already subject to the UCMJ? Apparently it's just that nobody bothers to prosecute, probably on grounds of political expediency and orders from DC. But then, the Bushies, stonewalling, stalling?

I don't have the time right now but I might answer your question later.