For all the talk about the economy, Iraq is still a central issue in the 2008 election. And the most important issue in Iraq is the future relationship between the US and the Iraqi government. This question was driven home by what many interpreted as a gaffe by McCain when he said "it doesn't matter" when US troops return home. As he has said before, John McCain envisions a permanent and large-scale occupation along the lines of Korea and Germany. Hw also imagines that occupation to be peaceful and blessed by the Iraqi government and Iraqi people as a whole.
There are two problematic assumptions behind McCain's argument. The first is that Iraq has not become the politically stable environment that post-1953 South Korea was or post-WWII Germany. And there is no indication that Iraq will ever stabilize like that. Americans will always be shot at in Iraq, so the "Korea-like" peaceful operation where we "don't take casualties" will never even begin.
But there's another problematic assumption that is only now getting major attention. What does the Iraqi government think of this? We know there are millions of Iraqis who detest the US. But we still have very close ties with the government, which has shown surprising deftness in handling crises in Basra and Mosul of late. If that government tells us we have to go, how can we justify staying?
As Juan Cole points out today, the Maliki government is showing the strongest signal yet that it wants the US out soon. Specifically, the Iraqi government is planning to reject Bush's status of forces agreement with Iraq, which would have allowed for dozens of permanent bases in the country. Sovereignty is the biggest stumbling block. According to Maliki, the US plans "violate Iraqi sovereignty. At the end, we reached a dead end."
McClatchy even quotes Maliki as possibly asking the US to leave Iraq once the UN mandate expires later this year.
No status of forces agreement = no US in Iraq.
So what will this mean for the US election? The central position in John McCain's national security policy is not that the surge has reduced violence, as much as he points that out. The central position is that we must remain in Iraq indefinitely, so we can use Iraq as a staging ground for further actions against Iran and various other strategic goals that McCain has so far failed to spell out. But if the Iraqi government tells us to leave, how can McCain even justify staying there?
Some enterprising journalist just might want to ask John McCain this question: Senator McCain, if the Iraqi government refuses to accept a permanent status of forces agreement and concludes that the US is no longer wanted in the country, will you then pull US troops out of the country? That strikes me as the most important question for the 2008 election right now, because if McCain botches this, he is utterly unfit to take the strategic reins of this country.
By the way, Juan Cole is MUST reading for those who want to know what is really happening in Iraq. If you think Iraq has reached some semblance of peaceful equilibrium, just read the "daily violence" section on Cole's site. It's depressing.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 15 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
