[R-G] "No Iraqi sovereignty if US forces stay": Lebanon paper states the obvious

[Fred Feldman]

In my opinion, stating the obvious is no small accomplishment these
days.
Fred Feldman

IRAQI SOVEREIGNTY IF US FORCES STAY
By Geoffrey Aronson

Daily Star (Lebanon)
January 30, 2004

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/30_01_04_c.asp

As the date for the formal transfer of sovereignty approaches in Iraq,
attention is focused upon crafting a political process that will
advance this
objective.  Yet if returning Iraq to the Iraqis is so important, it
would be
better to determine how to withdraw the well over 100,000 American
soldiers
who are settling in for an extended military occupation.

US officials, particularly those in the Department of Defense, have
always
insisted that the political and security tracks in Iraq proceed
independently
of one another.  As the vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
General
Peter Pace, explained two weeks ago, US military operations in Iraq
are
“independent of the process that’s ongoing now for elections,
nonelections,
constitutional (sic) writing, nonconstitutional (sic) writing.”  In
other
words, the Pentagon is prepared to let the politicians chatter as long
as they
don’t interfere with US military forces that are to retain the only
truly
sovereign power in the country.

The Bush administration may be prepared to recall American
administrators from
their desks in Baghdad, but the three- and four-star generals and
forces under
their command will remain for an indeterminate period.  The reduction
in US
military personnel over the next year to around 120,000 troops (from
the
current 150,000) is only being achieved by recruiting civilian
contractors to
do some jobs.  In short, the administration envisages no reduction in
the
ability of US forces to project their power throughout Iraq.

The closest US officials dare to come to estimating a time frame for
“staying
the course” is Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s hardly
reassuring view
that “our hope and expectation is that we’ll be able to draw down our
forces
over some reasonable period of time.

US policymakers appear to be under the illusion that the creation of
an Iraqi
government that draws its legitimacy from the Iraqi people, rather
than from
an American proconsul, will have no material affect on the freedom of
US
forces to operate.  There is a frantic effort underway to train Iraqis
to
assume everyday policing duties -­ more than 150,000 of them at last
count.
However, there is no possibility that indigenous forces, which today
have no
air force, transport and, in effect, no deployable fighting troops,
civilian
leadership or administration, will be able to confront an insurgency
that
promises to survive the formal end of the US occupation -­ let alone
defend
Iraq against external threats.

The continuing presence of US forces beyond July, even if they are
garrisoned
outside urban areas, will galvanize and sustain militant opposition
not only
to the American presence, but also to any Iraqi government that
accommodates
it.  Ironically, as long as US troops remain, it will be impossible to
accomplish the mission described by Pace, namely creating “a secure
environment inside of which the Iraqi people can get to their own
future.

The Bush administration is no more able to adapt US policy to this
reality
than its colonial predecessors were.  Pursuit of the illusive fruits
of
victory, won at such a high costs in blood and treasure, cannot be
easily
abandoned.  The British relinquished efforts to directly rule Iraq
only after
a widespread Shiite rebellion in 1920.  The US retreat from formal
occupation
has been far more precipitous -­ by July it will be barely more than a
year
after the fall of Baghdad.  Yet like the British before them, the
Americans
have already decided that the Iraqi successor regime will welcome US
forces ­-
the main reason it is so important that the “right” Iraqis rule -­ and
they
are preparing a “status of forces” agreement for signature that will
lend a
facade of Iraqi consent to this US demand.

According to Dan Senor, spokesman for the Coalition Provisional
Authority:
“[T]he status of the American security in Iraq will move in a matter
of months
from occupational force to invited guest.

The Bush administration is counting on a seamless transition from
occupation
to sovereignty that will stabilize and popularize the US military
presence
throughout Iraq.  Yet Iraqi history suggests a far different lesson.
These
armed “invited guests” will quickly outlive their welcome.  However
good their
intentions, their persistent, violent intervention in Iraqi life will
poison
hearts and minds.  More importantly, as long as US troops remain, they
will
remain the focus of Iraqi political life.  Promotion of their
departure will
be the principal litmus test of Iraqi patriotism.  These are the
elementary
facts of life in Baghdad that Washington refuses to believe.

The Bush administration is instead focusing on the political character
of the
transition to Iraqi rule, setting a self-interested agenda that
obscures the
source of US power in Iraq.  Iraqis, however, realize only too well
that for
as long as American forces remain, liberation will be incomplete.  The
assumption that the nature of the continuing US military occupation is
a
matter for Washington alone to determine, like most of the assumptions
that
have governed US policy towards Iraq, will not stand the test of
experience.
The Bush administration, or those Democrats who will replace it, need
to plan
today not for the consolidation of a massive expeditionary force in
Iraq, but
for its repatriation.

--Geoffrey Aronson is director of the Foundation for Middle East peace
in
Washington.  He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR