Well, George IS OUR President and WE let him do anything he wants. If he wants to stay in Iraq, I guess its OK with US. Oh, some will complain, talk morality of it all, discuss the druthers of the situation at length, give advice to each other, but in the end, WE let George do whatever he wants.

Is it heinous/treasonous to hope that the US loses in a legal battle, as it would be to hope that the US loses in a military battle? What if the legal battle is between the legislative branch and and the executive branch of the US? While I am asking questions, is faith alone sufficient to insure damnation, or are works required?

"...for imperative reasons of security..."

Shouldn't that read "for imperial reasons of security"?

The Iraqis who want us to leave, but are willing to work for it non-violently, can honestly ask: what else are we supposed to do? There unfortunately doesn't seem to be an answer.

Clarification please: When you say, "There unfortunately doesn't seem to be an answer", from whose perspective do you mean? From our or the Iraqis?

When you say, "There unfortunately doesn't seem to be an answer", from whose perspective do you mean? From ours or the Iraqis?

Well, from theirs. Certainly I hope from ours there's an answer for how to change things non-violently.

Hello, Jonathan.
I was thinking that Nir Rosen said rather explicitly the other day that Iraq was basically a Sarajevo II in the waiting.
Frankly, it changed my thinking about Iraq. The Iraq War is over, long gone. What we have now is a War among Iraqis.

It makes sense that the Sunnis would vote against withdrawal. They're the ones waiting to be slaughtered.
The Kurds, I believe, are more along the lines of nationalists who would vote for the removal of Jiminy Cricket.
But I can't figure out those Shiites.
Maybe they're more like Democrats than I give them credit for.

I thoroughly detest it, but there is a kind of satanic majesty to the machinations of the Bush Administration when engaged in an effort to indulge its whims, and I believe the Bush Administration's push for a so-called "status of forces" agreement with Iraq will stand as an example of such evil genius.
Right now, every time they are pushed on the issue, the designated Bush Administration mouthpieces repeat the soothing mantra that the contemplated agreement with Iraq will not require Congressional approval, because it will not commit the use of the American military to the defense of Iraq. However, viewed through the lens of the Bush/Cheyney/McCain(?) theory of unitary executive power, the contemplated agreement is the functional equivalent of such a commitment because it explicitly (in the draft quoted from in The Guardian) states that it is in the "interest" of America that threats to "Iraq's sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence" "be deterred." Certainly, if the Maliki puppet government notifies George The Magnificent of such a threat (or, just as likely, is told to give such notification), can't George dip into his inexhaustible bag of Commander In Chief powers and simply that the military action I am about to take (or have just taken, thank you very much) was required to protect vital American interests as codified in the agreement he himself created.
If you don't think the Bush Administration is crazy enough to do so, just read one of John Yoo's legal memoranda expounding on the godlike powers of the president, and his unfettered right to act where American interests are threatened.

It makes sense that the Sunnis would vote against withdrawal. They're the ones waiting to be slaughtered.

No, the Sunnis voted for withdrawal:

The measure [requiring the government to seek parliamentary permission for asking the United Nations to extend the mandate of U.S.-led forces in Iraq] was approved along party lines, with Sunnis joining the bloc loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr...

But I can't figure out those Shiites.

Well, Maliki's motivations for supporting an indefinite US occupation should be clear enough. Without his American protectors, the Green Zone would be overrun by Al Sadr's men and Maliki would be swinging from a Bechtel-installed lamp post.

Bush and Maliki are planning to sign an "agreement" approving a permanent US occupation...without the involvement of either country's legislative branch.

Amb. Crocker was almost forthright about the regime's determination to bypass Congress on this question, responding to questioning by Sen. Webb today before the Armed Services Committee.

They're trying to make this out like it's a Status Of Forces Agreement, which is to say - near as I can discern - something akin to the diplomatic agreements between executives regarding embassies, but for military forces, in regards to how local law applies to said foreign personnel. SOFAs don't get congressional approval in the US, and as far as I can tell they don't get any equivalent approval anywhere else.

So, legally, maybe we're back in the realm of those declarations of war that are never declared, but exist nonetheless in circumstances where torture is involved, then mysteriously evaporate when they're not. I don't know. I'm just a caveman. Your airports and neon crosses bewilder and confuse me.

Here's Gen. Richard Meyers discussing this with As'ad Abu Khalil:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEwkl4MS3Mc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-eccI1W1ds

The gist seems to be that a SOFA isn't a treaty, but an "agreement". The difference appears to be that executive branches can just declare "agreements" without any recourse to law and pretend they're legally binding, so long as the parties who made the agreement continue to agree to not enforce the law.

I left my Pocket International Law Expert in another pair of pants, is that approximately the way it works?

buermann: George can do whatever he wants, if the ground don't suck him down then he can defy the Law of Gravity if he likes.

Like the Mahdi Army, the Sunni militias hope to wait for the Americans to reduce their troop levels before they resume fighting Shiite militias.... These Sunni militias also have political goals and are attempting... effectively fight the Shiite militias and the Shiite dominated government, which they call an “Iranian Occupation.”
---Nir Rosen
02Apr08

I misread the statement, but the conclusion is somewhat accurate.
Iraq is currently Sarajevo II in the waiting.

But I can't figure out those Shiites.

think Blacks in South Africa...Hindus in India...Hutus in Rwanda... oppressed MAJORITIES controlled for the nonce by a colonial power arming a "ruling" MINORITY...

think Blacks in South Africa...
No, not quite.
The Shia are too factionalized to make a direct comparison.
I'm thinking that they really are the Democratic Party of Iraq's new Western-style democracy.

re: almostinfamous
That was a very informative link.
Unfortunately, it made my head hurt...

Foreign policy was never my strong point.
I like theory.
Music theory, physics, political theory....
Give me theory, not foreigners....
(including Foreigner 4-- never did care for it)

Foreign policy is the professional wrestling of politics.

Foreign policy is the professional wrestling of politics.

I don't get that analogy.

To me foreign policy is to public policy as hedge fund managers are to finance -- well educated and immoral swine, intentionally opaque, cliquishly populated by many idiots enabled by social class (and Yale).

Here are some other things that no one in America knows about Iraq:

There has never been a civil war in Iraq or a ‘sectarian civil war’ between Muslim sects. The Baath party was mainly Shia. There are Shia in the fictitious ‘Sunni Triangle’ and Sunni in Sadr City. The Muslim sects (there are more than 2!) frequently intermarry.

The ‘sectarian violence’ is just how the American media has chosen to explain why the guerrilla war isn’t ending. “Endless guerrilla war” (i.e. Vietnam) isn’t likely to be politically popular in America, so another explanation was desperately needed.

Muslims don’t hate Islam and aren’t likely to bomb mosques. Iraqis blame that on a group of heavily armed Islamophobes that recently arrived.

When France was losing control of Algeria, the army began setting off car bombs in an attempt to get the Algerians to hate the guerrillas. If one were cynical…

The reason many Iraqis still have limited access to electricity, food, and water is because they’re being collectively punished for resisting the occupation. The same thing is happening for the same reason in Gaza. It’s not due to ‘sectarian violence’ either.

"To my understanding a Conservative puts America first. He doesn’t start the process for Trade Deals that will handicap American businesses and jobs."

OVERLOOKED yet ASE and RELATED FACTS?
You decide.

Rothco,The "UNIFORM COMPANY," All hype , clothing for costumes only, or something VERY BAD & OVERLOOKED.
US Soldiers and Military are forbidden to wear these useless uniform "knock off" FAKE & DECEPTIVE "Look a likes."
COUNTERFEIT USA MILITARY uniforms should not be sold in such a way that USA soldiers get into trouble wearing their uniform to duty or well wishing gift givers later hear that the undisclosed COUNTERFEIT ROTHCO UNIFORMS get loved ones into trouble, causing need to exchange and other unspoken issues.
COUNTERFEIT USA MILITARY UNIFORMS NOT LABELED AS COSTUME CLOTHING ARE A MALICIOUS TREASON AGAINST THE USA. IT is an offense to EVERY soldier and family and danger to the USA.
ROTHCO has escaped prosecution thus far.
Why the US Government has not noticed where some uniform sales are made to as they only have 1 approved uniform and 1 approved pair of Military boots , makes one wonder what NON US GOVERNMENT(S) are being secretly supplied similar looking uniforms to possible enemies of the USA , thus endangering our AMERICAN TROUPES.
Why do the Federal Government ALLOW ROTHCO to get away with HIGH TREASON? Were we Bushwacked by graft from http://www.rothco.com ?

John Ottaviano