|
WORD COUNT
683
JUNE 18, 2008
IRAQI’S NOT SETTLING
FOR SUBSERVIENT STATUS – Daniel M. Smith
“The ability of any
nation to enact, enforce, and interpret its own laws and be governed by
them is one of the most recognized powers of any sovereign.” National
Congress of American Indians
After five years of
war, Iraqis are pressing more and more for the end of occupation by
foreign troops and foreign “al-Qaeda” fighters. In short, Iraqis want
their country back. But that is not going to be their future if the
current Washington and Baghdad administrations find a way to sidestep
the U.S. Congress and Iraq’s parliament to implement the November 2007
“Declaration of Principles” signed by President Bush and Iraqi Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Normally, each
country’s delegation to international talks is united on what they want
to achieve – and what is and is not a “make or break” position. Not so
the Iraqi delegation working on the “Declaration of Principles.”
Already suspicious of what
Washington wants from
Iraq when the UN mandate legalizing the foreign troop presence expires
at year’s end, the two major Shi’a parties in the parliament forced al-Maliki
to include senior parliamentarians in the Iraqi delegation.
Reportedly, after the
U.S. presented
its position at the first meeting, the parliamentarians were stunned by
the sheer temerity of the U.S. position:
- blanket immunity
from Iraqi law for all
U.S.
military and all “private military contractor” personnel;
- control of all
Iraqi air space below 30,000 feet (presumably to allow U.S. military
aircraft to conduct close air support when needed without having to
worry about civil airliners intruding into the area where the fighting
is in progress;
- the U.S., not
Iraq, will decide if a “hostile” activity or incident directed at Iraq
from any of its neighbors constitutes “aggression,” thereby empowering
the U.S. president to launch a preemptive attack on a neighboring
country. A scenario could easily unfold wherein a neighboring country
(e.g., Iran)
relocates troops to cut off trans-border movement of U.S.-backed rebels
attacking Iran. When the first firefight occurs, the
U.S.
declares an imminent invasion looms and, invoking Article 51 of the UN
Charter, launches a large-scale attack “in self-defense.”
- the
U.S. - Iraq agreement
would have no termination date and no provision to review its continued
relevance to the situation on the ground. In other words, once signed
and ratified, both
Washington
and Baghdad could put the agreement on the shelf and forget it.
Washington appears to
have made only one concession: the agreement can be cancelled by either
party, effective two years after invoking the opt out clause. Even this
is only a partial concession, for normally treaty annulment provisions
specify a six month or one year interval from notification to
abrogation.
The question for
Iraqis is how much of their national identity are they willing to give
up – or must give up – to achieve a reasonable standard of “security?”
The answer may be
“none.”
Baghdad
counted 531,616 Iraqis in the security sector – military, interior
ministry, and special counter-terror organizations – at the start of
2008. By 2010, Iraqi forces will reach a combined strength of between
601,000 and 646,000 individuals. Is this sufficient to ensure enough
security to allow the society to function or will
Iraq remain what
American soldiers call “Indian Country.”
As it happens, a
direct comparison can be made to real “Indian Country.” The National
Congress of American Indians reports that the Bureau of Indian Affairs
fields 2,380 law enforcement officers in the lower-forty-eight states.
They are responsible for securing 90,625 square miles of tribal lands
and safeguarding 1.4 million Native Americans – a ratio of 1.3 officers
per 1,000 citizens patrolling an average of 380 square miles.
Iraq’s projected
601,000 will have a ratio of 2.4 security personnel per 1,000 citizens
and will average a patrol “area” of 0.3 square miles. Even setting
aside Iraq’s
military still leaves 1.4 security personnel per 1,000 citizens, more
than in real “Indian Country.”
In fact, this
comparison suggests that the administration could bring
U.S.
troops home, demobilize them, and offer to help those who want to go
into law enforcement if they agree to serve with the Bureau of Indian
Affairs.
--
Colonel Daniel M. Smith (Ret.), a West
Point graduate and Vietnam veteran is the Senior Fellow for Military
Affairs at the Friend Committee on National Legislation. FCNL is a
Quaker-based public interest lobby founded in 1943. FCNL is
headquartered in Washington
DC.
www.fcnl.org -- A photo of Colonel Daniel M. Smith is available
CLICK HERE
# # # # #
|
