Beyond the Pale: Bush, Iraq, and Treason
In fact, now the loose talk about Bush being a criminal begins to acquire some credibility.
The death knell for a coherent, national Iraq policy was sounded in the New York Times article that revealed conclusion of a Status of Forces Agreement between the U.S.A. and Iraq is impossible before the June 30 transition. (Dexter Filkins Iraqis Say Deal on US Troops Must be Put Off, New York Times, Feb. 23, 2004)
That’s a big deal.
After the transition, America loses its status as the occupying power.
And American troops lose their immunity from local prosecution.
Without the protection of a successor SOFA with the sovereign Iraq government, American troops are liable to detention and prosecution by the Iraq government.
But Bush will go on with the transition anyway.
Because now our Iraq policy is not about national defense, whether or not it was based on flawed intelligence…
It is not about promoting strategic American interests, be they oil or military advantage, behind the misleading screen of the “War on Terror”;
It is not about securing American influence in the Middle East, either by sincere democratization or blatant interference in Iraqi affairs…
The Bush administration Iraq policy is now simply and nakedly a measure to assist President Bush’s re-election efforts…
…despite the risks to American troops and interests and the future of the Iraqi people.
So Bush is on the hook for murder.
Not necessarily for the American lives squandered in pursuit of a misguided, dishonestly presented, and marginally legal overseas adventure…
…but for the American and Iraqi lives that will be lost for no other reason than to obscure the failures of Bush’s policies — for the private purpose of promoting Bush’s political advantage.
Ahmad Chalabi, our man in Baghdad, had already declared back in November that the significance of the June 30 transition to Iraqi self rule was a function of backward math, meant to ensure that Bush obtains a gratifying pre-election photo op in October with grateful members of the New Iraq government (thanks to Feb. 24 Calpundit for resurrecting that Chalabi nugget).
In Bush’s indecent haste to implement this election strategy, the sovereignty transfer has turned into a sovereignty dump.
The Bush administration insisted on the June 30 date as the only non-negotiable element of the transition.
As a result, it surrendered everything else in the political fire sale engendered by Ayatollah Sistani’s insistence on direct elections.
All parties to the negotiations knew from the beginning that the CPA was a lame duck.
Plans for a constitutional convention and a caucusized IGC all evaporated as virtually every political actor abandoned the United States and rushed to the side of Ayatollah Sistani as he called for direct elections. He was joined by SCIRI — the political voice of the Shi’as on the IGC; the Kurds; and even Ahmed Chalabi, who decided his future depended on heeding the national voice of Sistani instead of his master’s voice in the Pentagon.
Finally, even Jerry Bremer capitulated.
The U.S. was forced to abandon its plans for economic reform in Iraq; its hopes for installing a legitimate, pro-US regime that would guide the constitutional process to a suitable outcome; and its expectation that it would be able to counter the forces of Islamic theocracy in Iraq’s political process.
What should be inflaming conservatives is that, on top of all that, Bush has allowed Sistani not only to hijack the political process in Iraq but to involve the hated UN instead of Iraq’s US liberators in the planning of Iraq’s future.
Will an independent democratic process mediated by the UN and Sistani result in U.S. military access to Iraq bases? Don’t count on it.
And finally, no SOFA for our troops. They will be legally unprotected until a legitimate, elected Iraq government decides to negotiate the agreement with the US. That may never happen.
So the Iraq “policy” is a politically short-sighted, self-serving piece of election-year garbage dreamt up by Bush and Rove.
It fundamentally compromises American security interests in the Gulf by allowing Iraq — a country we conquered only last year, for goodness sakes — to drift out of the US orbit and seek its own political future. And it recklessly and needlessly compromises the safety and legal status of our troops.
All so George W. Bush can put Iraq behind him for the purposes of his re-election.
That’s misusing public policy, government funds, and American lives for personal advantage.
That’s impeachable.
When you look at the harm done to American vital interests…
…it’s also probably treason.
But there’s more.
Bush’s irresponsible cut and run from Iraq requires him to repudiate the solemn obligations the US undertook as occupiers.
In the May 18 letter announcing Coalition plans for Iraq to the UN Security Council, the US and the UK unequivocally took responsibility as occupiers for civil law and order in Iraq.
Overall responsibility for Iraq security is an extremely onerous obligation.
It requires the US forces to patrol dangerous roads, enter hostile cities, and put American troops in harm’s way as we try to combat the Iraq counter-insurgency and pacify or overawe the general population.
It produces casualties…
…American casualties…
…American casualties that would be a continued reminder during an election year of a failed and unpopular war.
When the U.S. government relinquishes its title of occupier and dissolves the CPA, Bush believes America can shirk its responsibilities for Iraq security.
US intervention in the Iraq security quagmire becomes an option, instead of an obligation.
Rumsfeld presented America’s selective approach to security as follows:
Rumsfeld said. "In one section of the country, the military commander will make a judgment they can move back and put the Iraqi forces out front, and that will stand permanently. It may also be in some parts of the country that won't happen, and they'll make a judgment ... they need to press back in and support the Iraqi security forces. You'll see that ebb and flow for period of time." (AP, Rumsfeld: US Won’t Back Down in Iraq, Feb. 23, 2004)
American troops can hunker down in their bases — at least through November 2 - while the inadequate Iraq security forces are put on the front lines.
Don’t look for a lot of good things to happen as the New Iraq army of opportunists, infiltrators, and gun-craving sectarians are pressed to impose the security diktats of the hapless IGC. Unless you think the ARVNs did a great job of counter-insurgency on America’s behalf in South Vietnam.
And don’t look for international law to back Bush’s cut and run, even if the compliant UN gives its seal of approval to the IGC’s assumption of sovereignty.
Under international law — as accepted by the US — these obligations are borne by the US as the occupying power in de facto control of Iraq’s territory. They cannot be wished away by a statement transferring sovereignty into the trembling fingers of the Iraq Governing Council. (see the UK Parliamentary research paper 03/51 Iraq: Law of Occupation, June 2003)
The US military has acknowledged that any Iraq government must rely on Coalition military power for civil order:
Gen. John P. Abizaid, the commander of American forces in the region, recently suggested that the military agreement would not occur according to the original timetable, but he expressed confidence that whatever the new conditions might be, the American military would be treated hospitably. Simply put, no Iraqi government could survive without the American forces, according to American commanders. (Filkins op. cit.)
If the security forces dissolve into nightmare of ethnic and warlord militias and government death squads, then it’s America’s fault.
Not just in the ooooh you screwed up again George sort of way.
But in the ooooh that’s a war crime sort of way.
In the past, when we talked about George W. Bush’s errors like Harken, Arbusto, and the Texas Air National Guard, the subsequent bail-outs, and the ensuing cover-ups, we used the metaphors of “skeletons in the closet” and “burying the bodies” to describe his attempts to evade accountability and responsibility.
This time the skeletons and the bodies are real.
This time, Bush’s behavior is beyond the pale — politically, morally, and legally.
And his criminal, treasonous Iraq policy should be the key to his downfall — instead of his re-election.
