Operation Infinite Occupation

(If Obama had said before the election what he did do after being elected, would as many people have voted for him?--jef)

***

Does Obama's New Iraq Plan Violate the Law?
By ANTHONY DiMAGGIO

The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) signed by President Bush in late 2008 legally required the U.S. to withdrawal all troops from the country by the end of 2011. The Bush administration was never keen on the plan, which was forced on U.S. leaders by Iraqi political official who were set on ending the occupation, in accord with the wishes of the vast majority of the Iraqi people. If Bush had remained in office long enough, there is little doubt that he would have opposed a full withdrawal, as setting a timetable for removing U.S. troops was long opposed by the President, who consistently and vigorously demanded that “conditions on the ground” dictate the removal or adding of forces.

President Obama has performed a rhetorical trick in his promises of withdrawal from Iraq. Obama promises that all “combat troops” will be removed from the country by this year, and that a full withdrawal will take place by December 31, 2011. A closer examination, however, leads one to re-evaluate Obama’s rhetoric in light of a more Machiavellian backpedalling from the president. A spokesperson for New York Republican House Representative John McHugh reports that Obama promised him that the promise for a full withdrawal may be reconsidered prior to the end of 2011, and is dependent upon conditions on the ground and whether they merit a full pullout. The president reported went on record promising that there was a “Plan B,” if the administration decides that troops need to remain.

Jim Miklaszeswki, NBC’s correspondent at the Pentagon, reports that the U.S. military is now considering plans for thousands of troops to remain in Iraq for years to come after 2011, perhaps for another 15 to 20 years. Such plans are premised upon assumptions that Obama will “renegotiate” the Status of Forces Agreement by applying tremendous pressure on Iraqi leaders to agree to an indefinite continuation of the occupation.

Many of the major U.S. bases in Iraq were always meant to be permanent, as the Bush administration announced during their construction that they would remain for the indefinite future. Obama appears to be continuing Bush’s original policy of an indefinite occupation, despite legal requirements of a full withdrawal.

It’s interesting to see how the story of Iraqi “withdrawal” has been reported in the U.S. media, which prefers Obama’s public rhetoric to his private concessions that the occupation may never end for the foreseeable future. The August 2nd headline for the New York Times, for example, uncritically reads: “In Speech on Iraq, Obama Reaffirms Drawdown.” The story reported that “The drawdown will bring the American force in Iraq to 50,000 troops by Aug. 31, down from 144,000 when Mr. Obama took office. The remaining ‘advise and assist’ brigades will officially focus on supporting and training Iraqi security forces, protecting American personnel and facilities, and mounting counterterrorism operations.” Similarly, the Washington Post headline from the 2nd of August states that “Obama Tells Veterans That End of Iraq War is About to Begin.” The story depicts Obama as carrying out his electoral withdrawal promise “largely on schedule,” and uncritically repeats Obama’s promise that “our commitment in Iraq is changing – from a military effort led by our troops to a civilian effort led by our diplomats.” Clearly, any plans for an indefinite occupation make such a promise null and void.

Any last minute announcement that the U.S. will be remaining in Iraq is bound to be met with controversy. The U.S. will be coercing the Iraqi government into revoking a past agreement that enjoys the support of the Iraqi masses, in addition to the American public. CNN polling shows that, as of May 2010, 62 percent of Americans oppose the war in Iraq. Sixty-four percent support the Obama announcement “that he will remove U.S. troops from Iraq by August of this year, but keep 35 thousand to 50 thousand troops in that country longer than that.” Polling from December 2009 by NBC and the Wall Street Journal finds that 70 percent of Americans support a full withdrawal by the end of 2011, in line with the United States’ legal requirements. The state of public opinion on Iraq is well known today.

Whether Obama will follow the wishes of the U.S. people in Iraq, however, remains an open question.

Obama Scraps Iraq Withdrawal Plan

Pushed Around By the Generals
By DAVID SWANSON

So, we elected a president who promised a withdrawal from Iraq that he, or the generals who tell him what to do, is now further delaying. And, of course, the timetable he's now delaying was already a far cry from what he had promised as a candidate.

What are we to think? That may be sad news, but what could we have done differently? Surely it would have been worse to elect a president who did not promise to withdraw, right?

But there's a broader framework for this withdrawal or lack thereof, namely the SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement), the unconstitutional treaty that Bush and Maliki drew up without consulting the U.S. Senate. I was reminded of this on Tuesday when Obama and Karzai talked about a forthcoming document from the two of them and repeatedly expressed their eternal devotion to a long occupation.

The unconstitutional Iraq treaty (UIT) requires complete withdrawal from Iraq by the end of next year, and withdrawal from all Iraqi cities, villages, and localities by last summer. Obama's latest announcement doesn't alter the lack of compliance with the latter requirement. Nor does it guarantee noncompliance with the former. But it illustrates something else, something that some of us have been screaming since the UIT was allowed to stand, something that pretty well guarantees that the US occupation of Iraq will never end.

Imagine if Congress funded, defunded, oversaw, and regulated the military and wars as required by our Constitution. Imagine if the president COULDN'T simply tell Congress that troops would be staying in Iraq longer than planned, but had to ask for the necessary funding first. Here's the lesson for this teachable moment:

Persuading presidents to end wars only looks good until they change their mind. Cutting off the funding actually forces wars to end.

When the US peace movement refused to challenge the UIT, it left Bush's successor and his successors free to ignore it, revise it, or replace it. Congress has been removed from the equation. If Obama decides to inform Congress that the occupation of Iraq will go on into 2012, Congress' response will be as muted as when the Director of National Intelligence informed Congress that killing Americans was now legal. And what can Congress say? It had no role in ratifying the UIT in the first place.

And the peace movement is in large part on the same path with Afghanistan, working to pass a toothless, non-binding timetable for possible redeployment of troops to another nation. Congress sees itself as advisors whose role it is to persuade the president that he wants to cease the activity that most advances presidential power. And activists share that perspective.

But what happens if the president becomes unpersuaded about ending both of these wars? What in the world are we supposed to do then?

We have an alternative to painting ourselves into this corner. The alternative is to build a movement of war opponents (and advocates for spending on human needs and/or tax cuts) that can pressure the House of Representatives to cut off the funding for the wars. Of course, this isn't easy. It's much harder than collecting signatures on a toothless resolution. And it's dramatically harder than watching the president create an unconstitutional treaty (something Bush was forced into primarily by the people of Iraq) and then stepping aside to celebrate.

But there is no stronger message that could be used to persuade a president than a growing caucus of congress members denying him the money. And once a majority is reached in the caucus of war defunders, then the war simply has to end, whether the president is persuaded of anything or not.

So, the lesson to be learned from Obama scrapping his current plan for an Iraq withdrawal is not that we should phone the White House and complain. It's not that we need 20 more cosponsors of the nonbinding timetable for Afghanistan. The lesson is that we must tell members of the House of Representatives that they can vote against war funding or we will vote against them.

Not a new lesson, I realize, but the Constitution is always less read than talked about.