Majority of Iraqi Lawmakers Now Reject Occupation

Majority of Iraqi Lawmakers Now Reject Occupation
Body: More than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected for the first time on Tuesday the continuing occupation of their country. The U.S. media ignored the story.


On Tuesday, without note in the U.S. media, more than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected the continuing occupation of their country. 144 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal, according to Nassar Al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the Al Sadr movement, the nationalist Shia group that sponsored the petition.

It's a hugely significant development. Lawmakers demanding an end to the occupation now have the upper hand in the Iraqi legislature for the first time; previous attempts at a similar resolution fell just short of the 138 votes needed to pass (there are 275 members of the Iraqi parliament, but many have fled the country's civil conflict, and at times it's been difficult to arrive at a quorum).

Reached by phone in Baghdad on Tuesday, Al-Rubaie said that he would present the petition, which is nonbinding, to the speaker of the Iraqi parliament and demand that a binding measure be put to a vote. Under Iraqi law, the speaker must present a resolution that's called for by a majority of lawmakers, but there are significant loopholes and what will happen next is unclear.

What is clear is that while the U.S. Congress dickers over timelines and benchmarks, Baghdad faces a major political showdown of its own. The major schism in Iraqi politics is not between Sunni and Shia or supporters of the Iraqi government and "anti-government forces," nor is it a clash of "moderates" against "radicals"; the defining battle for Iraq at the political level today is between nationalists trying to hold the Iraqi state together and separatists backed, so far, by the United States and Britain.

The continuing occupation of Iraq and the allocation of Iraq's resources -- especially its massive oil and natural gas deposits -- are the defining issues that now separate an increasingly restless bloc of nationalists in the Iraqi parliament from the administration of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose government is dominated by Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish separatists.

By "separatists," we mean groups who oppose a unified Iraq with a strong central government; key figures like Maliki of the Dawa party, Shia leader Abdul Aziz Al-Hakeem of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq ("SCIRI"), Vice President Tariq Al-Hashimi of the Sunni Islamic Party, President Jalal Talabani -- a Kurd -- and Masoud Barzani, president of the Kurdish Autonomous Region, favor partitioning Iraq into three autonomous regions with strong local governments and a weak central administration in Baghdad. (The partition plan is also favored by several congressional Democrats, notably Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware.)

Iraq's separatists also oppose setting a timetable for ending the U.S. occupation, preferring the addition of more American troops to secure their regime. They favor privatizing Iraq's oil and gas and decentralizing petroleum operations and revenue distribution.

But public opinion is squarely with Iraq's nationalists. According to a poll by the University of Maryland's Project on International Public Policy Attitudes, majorities of all three of Iraq's major ethno-sectarian groups support a unified Iraq with a strong central government. For at least two years, poll after poll has shown that large majorities of Iraqis of all ethnicities and sects want the United States to set a timeline for withdrawal, even though (in the case of Baghdad residents), they expect the security situation to deteriorate in the short term as a result.

That's nationalism, and it remains the central if unreported motivation for many Iraqis, both within the nascent government and on the streets.

While sectarian fighting at the neighborhood and community level has made life unlivable for millions of Iraqis, Iraqi nationalism -- portrayed as a fiction by supporters of the invasion -- supercedes sectarian loyalties at the political level. A group of secular, Sunni and Shia nationalists have long voted together on key issues, but so far have failed to join forces under a single banner.

That may be changing. Reached by phone last week, nationalist leader Saleh Al-Mutlaq, of the National Dialogue Front, said, "We're doing our best to form this united front and announce it within the next few weeks." The faction would have sufficient votes to block any measure proposed by the Maliki government. Asked about the Americans' reaction to the growing power of the nationalists, Mutlaq said, "We're trying our best to reach out to the U.S. side, but to no avail."

That appears to be a trend. Iraqi nationalists have attempted again and again to forge relationships with members of Congress, the State Department, the Pentagon and the White House but have found little interest in dialogue and no support. Instead, key nationalists like al-Sadr have been branded as "extremists," "thugs" and "criminals."

That's a tragic missed opportunity; the nationalists are likely Iraq's best hope for real and lasting reconciliation among the country's warring factions. They are the only significant political force focused on rebuilding a sovereign, united and independent Iraq without sectarian and ethnic tensions or foreign meddling -- from either the West or Iran. Hassan Al-Shammari, the head of Al-Fadhila bloc in the Iraqi parliament, said this week, "We have a peace plan, and we're trying to work with other nationalist Iraqis to end the U.S. and Iranian interventions, but we're under daily attacks and there's huge pressure to destroy our peace mission."

A sovereign and unified Iraq, free of sectarian violence, is what George Bush and Tony Blair claim they want most. The most likely reason that the United States and Britain have rebuffed those Iraqi nationalists who share those goals is that the nationalists oppose permanent basing rights and the privatization of Iraq's oil sector. The administration, along with their allies in Big Oil, has pressed the Iraqi government to adopt an oil law that would give foreign multinationals a much higher rate of return than they enjoy in other major oil producing countries and would lock in their control over what George Bush called Iraq's "patrimony" for decades.

Al-Shammari said this week: "We're afraid the U.S. will make us pass this new oil law through intimidation and threatening. We don't want it to pass, and we know it'll make things worse, but we're afraid to rise up and block it, because we don't want to be bombed and arrested the next day." In the Basrah province, where his Al-Fadhila party dominates the local government, Al-Shammari's fellow nationalists have been attacked repeatedly by separatists for weeks, while British troops in the area remained in their barracks.

The nationalists in parliament will now press their demands for withdrawal. At the same time, the emerging nationalist bloc is holding hearings in which officials from the defense and interior ministries have been grilled about just what impediments to building a functional security force remain and when the Iraqi police and military will be able to take over from foreign troops. Both ministries are believed to be heavily infiltrated by both nationalist (al-Sadr's Mahdi Army) and separatist militias (the pro-Iranian Badr Brigade).

The coming weeks and months will be crucial to Iraq's future. The United States, in pushing for more aggressive moves against Iraqi nationalists and the passage of a final oil law, is playing a dangerous game. Iraqi nationalists reached in Baghdad this week say they are beginning to lose hope of achieving anything through the political process because both the Iraqi government and the occupation authorities are systematically bypassing the Iraqi parliament where they're in the majority. If they end up quitting the political process entirely, that will leave little choice but to oppose the occupation by violent means.

Just a suggestion Zaknafien, but it is usually considered good practice to include a link to the article quoted, so we can see the provenance and context of the opinion offered.

It's also a courtesy to the original publication and author.

:bow:

Good for the Iraqi lawmakers - now we will have to wait and see if anything comes of it.

Hopefully this forces the United States Congress and the President to come to an agreement about what is to be done.

whoopsie, here you go:

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51624/

Its promising and disturbing at once, the administration will not accept this and are likely to demonize the iraqi politicians as a result, because they will not accept anything but the privitization of the oil industry so U.S. corporations can move back in. Patriotic iraqis are standing up to this, trying to maintain state control on the oil industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

whoopsie, here you go:

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51624/

Its promising and disturbing at once, the administration will not accept this and are likely to demonize the iraqi politicians as a result, because they will not accept anything but the privitization of the oil industry so U.S. corporations can move back in. Patriotic iraqis are standing up to this, trying to maintain state control on the oil industry.

---

Darn, Iraq would be so worth it if we can grab some oil to keep gas prices low for a while, the consequence will be that people will forget about fuel efficiancy.

Well theres been a lot of talk from republicans of asking them to vote on the matter. I say whats holding them up? If they say go were outta here. What an easy way out. What a mess they will be in. I pity the fools.

The republicans won't let that happen (nor will the democrats for that matter), the US companies want those oil contracts.

Good enough for me, let's pack up and beats feet. Before they change their mind...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

The republicans won't let that happen (nor will the democrats for that matter), the US companies want those oil contracts.

---

Then we shall see if the message of the current President is correct or false. If under the democratic process the Iraqi government asks us to depart, as a nation we should honor that request.

Time will tell.

im sure there'll be some rhetoric about premature withdrawal, security, blah blah... besides, Bechtel and Halliburton and KBR and Bush's other bosses are making too much money for us to get out now.

Source site makes FOX seem "fair and balanced."

Like to see more of their sourcing for the claims in this article.

The sub-text of the article is that the USA wants nothing but money for its corporations and will [insert flower] anyone in Iraq -- even people who make a claim to represent what the USA has articulated is the goal we seek -- to get that result.

I'm skeptical, because I do not assume that a majority of my government leaders are amoral slime as my starting point for the analysis. If they were, they've been completely incompetent about it...the acquisition of Mexico and Venez would have been more profitable and less difficult logistically. With immigration constituting an "invasion" and Chavez' mouth, "pretexts" could have been trumped up.

Chavez was basically saved by Saddam, though. It was either Iraq or Venez, Saddam played tough, so he lost out. Don't think the corporations won't go after Chavez again though --one CIA coup against him already failed. We certainly can't have a free-thinking democratically elected leader working for the good of his people running around down there can we?

By the way-- you actually think the government wants something besides money for the corporations? Like what??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

Chavez was basically saved by Saddam, though. It was either Iraq or Venez, Saddam played tough, so he lost out. Don't think the corporations won't go after Chavez again though --one CIA coup against him already failed. We certainly can't have a free-thinking democratically elected leader working for the good of his people running around down there can we?

By the way-- you actually think the government wants something besides money for the corporations? Like what??

---

Ah boy, lets not get into the Chavez discussion while discussing Iraqi Lawmakers begining to stand up for themselves.

It does amaze me just how stupid and incompetant the current raft of politicians are on both sides of the pond. It's really depressing.

You get what you vote for.

Q: How is a non-binding petition to set a timetable 'rejecting occupation'?

Crazed Rabbit

The democratically elected government of Iraq has asked for a timetable for US troops to leave Iraq. It's as close as the art of diplomacy gets to saying 'take- off'.

If they ask, we should leave.

If it's for real, I'm genuinely glad for the entire US politicos, especially the next President. No better excuses can be found than an official "we want you off."

S/He is no longer such a guaranteed one-term suicide President if Iraq could be "solved" (meaning, US drops everything and get the hell out, come what may; genocides, massacres, destruction in one of the world's most important regions aside) in such a manner. Poor Mr. Bush is already dead, politically of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

Chavez was basically saved by Saddam, though. It was either Iraq or Venez, Saddam played tough, so he lost out. Don't think the corporations won't go after Chavez again though --one CIA coup against him already failed. We certainly can't have a free-thinking democratically elected leader working for the good of his people running around down there can we?

By the way-- you actually think the government wants something besides money for the corporations? Like what??

---

So the USA is a crock of feces eternally fighting the banana wars at the behest of "very big corp." :inquisitive: Reads too much like conspiracy stuff to me, sorry.

You're looking for a simple "our leaders are bad" answer and it isn't there. Some of them are for sale, sadly, and others are so worried about re-election that they don't do their jobs properly. That's humanity on parade not evil intent. Most of them try to do what they think is best -- doesn't mean their right of course -- but distractions, unintended consequences, chance, bureaucratic inertia, etc. all have their influence on events.

You know, I wish it were 100% correct that capitalism is evil and exploitative amd that any use of military force aside from direct defense were 100% wrong -- it'd make things a lot easier to size up. Instead, we have a world where socialism implodes and capitalism needs regulation to avoid accidental self destruction; where military force and spending lives is a currency for doing business; where most people just try to get through their week and make their families' lives a touch better -- but remain ignorant of the host of issues that affect their lives but that policy wonks revel in.

We do not live in Roller Ball Murder's corporate future.

We do not live in "A Brave New World."

We have NOT always been at war with Eurasia.

Each of these stories has lessons that do matter and we live in a world where some aspects of these fears are at play.

There is also good in the world, and some of it is done by politicians. :shocked2: Not as much as they should, I'll stipulate, but.....

I say you chaps pack up and leave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

We certainly can't have a free-thinking democratically elected leader working for the good of his people running around down there can we?

---

Self made free thinker is not the words to describe Chavez, but nice try. Democratically elected so he can act or say how he wants towards the U.S. but our democratically elected leader may not say or act negatively towards him. Got it...no bias there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

By the way-- you actually think the government wants something besides money for the corporations? Like what??

---

To believe that some say Michael Moore doesn't have influence, but then again he's a free thinker too who only vacations in cuba for the cigars.

Though I think a prolonged stay of the US in Iraq is better for Iraq and for us if they ask us to set a time table to leave then so be it. Leave them to their own devices and don't hold a grudge against us for leaving the country in such a state of insecurity.

Well time to pack up and get moving then, we could use a hand in Afghanistan.

Hm, I suggest you read Confessions of an Economic Hitman, to start with, especially concerning the American Republic versus the American Empire.

The Republic offered hope to the world. Its foundation was moral and philisophical rather than materialistic. It was based on equality and justice for all, and a haven for the poor, tired, and sick of the world. But it could also be pragmatic, not merely a utopian dream but a living, breathing, magnanimous entity. It could open its arms to shelter the downtrodden. It was an inspriation and at the same time a force to be reckoned with, if needed, it would swing into action, as it had done in WW II, to defend the principles for which it stood. The very institutions--big corporations, banks, and government beauacracies that threaten the republic could be used instead to institute fundamental changes in the world. Such institutions possess the communications networks and transportation systems needed to end disease, starvation, and even wars, if only they could be convinced to take that course.

The global empire, on the other hand, is the republic's nemesis. It is self-centered, self-serving, greedy, and materialistic, a system based on exploitation and mercantilism. LIke empires before, its arms open only to accumulate resources, to grab everything in sight. It will use whatever means it deems necessary to help its rulers gain more power and riches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Well time to pack up and get moving then, we could use a hand in Afghanistan.

---

I wonder if the Afghans really want us there either? The ways things are going there - the Don Quixote NATO tilts at the poppy fields; the resurgent Taliban now with roadside bombs and suicide bombers; the feeble enclave government unable to build a political consensus or even train an army to defend itself - it reminds me more and more of Iraq.

I am impressed by the old saying: you can't buy an Afghan's loyalty; you can only rent it. I'm wondering if the lease is up?

Gah! Lawmakers, what lawmakers? They couldn't uphold their laws five meters outside of parliament without the backing of their allied 'occupiers'.

If the allies should leave it's because there's nothing to gain for them. Might as well cut their losses, pack up and go home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

I wonder if the Afghans really want us there either? The ways things are going there - the Don Quixote NATO tilts at the poppy fields; the resurgent Taliban now with roadside bombs and suicide bombers; the feeble enclave government unable to build a political consensus or even train an army to defend itself - it reminds me more and more of Iraq.

I am impressed by the old saying: you can't buy an Afghan's loyalty; you can only rent it. I'm wondering if the lease is up?

---

Poppy field destroying is a huge mistake, that's why we might need a hand. Seems to be doing fine for now but destroying people's sole recource to live is never a very good idea.

Like I said even if they havent asked us to leave we should ask them to vote on the matter. Then we will know where we stand. If they vote go then were outta there and leave the kennel to Lassie.

So Zak, which version of America was responsible for the conquest of the Philippines? American slavery?

To be fair to the isolationist crowd, ATPG, they usually put the advent of US imperialism at around 1898 -- the Phillipines being their first "bad" example. The ACW was, to the isolationists, the last war we should have been involved in as it was the war by/through which the USA's one "at start" critical flaw was corrected.

Isolationists are more "mixed" in their views regarding: the undeclared naval war with France, the conflicts with (one declared, others not) the "Barbary Pirates" (read Tunisia, Libya, and to a lesser extent Morocco), the Mexican-American War, the campaigns against the amerinds (aka native americans, indians, injuns, indigenous peoples), the punitive expedition against Pancho Villa, our attempts to invade Canada during both the Revolution and the War of 1812, and the border posturing in support of the overthrow of Ferdinand of Mexico in 1865-1867.

If you want a couple of good authors on the imperialism issues, I'd suggest:

Smedley Butler

Max Boot

Quote:

---

Smedley Butler

---

What an amazing man. A true marine. Won two medals of honor I believe. Its hard to believe he wrote some of that stuff. I mean what the hell did he know :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

What an amazing man. A true marine. Won two medals of honor I believe. Its hard to believe he wrote some of that stuff. I mean what the hell did he know :laugh4:

---

:laugh4:

Yes. 2 MoH. They may have been a mite easier to acquire (and survive) then, but still an impressive accomplishment.

He had very few illusions about what he was doing, but he was also not of the opinion that everything we were doing was wrong either.

Smedley Butler aside, didn't the Iraqis set up their constitution so that the individual factions could all have a limited autonomy of their own? I don't know, as I haven't read a translated copy of the document, but I can't help but think that the situation could be mitigated with the implementation of such a measure. It would be sort of how each state has it's own powers in the constitution of the U.S. It's that sort of comprimise that allows represenative government to work, albiet in its inefficient manner.

Does anyone know where I could find a copy of the Iraqi constitution online?

the pdf is here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotorgun

It would be sort of how each state has it's own powers in the constitution of the U.S. It's that sort of comprimise that allows represenative government to work, albiet in its inefficient manner.

---

Remember that the reason you need that, is because the US is a big country with a lot of people in it. Smaller countries doesn't need that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Remember that the reason you need that, is because the US is a big country with a lot of people in it. Smaller countries doesn't need that.

---

Except it isn't just an issue of size. Iraq is a patchwork nation, with several different regions tacked together, each with its own particular blend of cultural, linguistic, religious, and ethnic characteristics, and not all in easy harmony. A more homogenous nation of the same size could easily manage as one political body. For Iraq it might be more difficult.

Ajax

The original topic was briefly mentioned in this thread..https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=85093 if you note what Xiahou brought up in relation to what you just wrote Rotor . While the majority block in the Iraqi government is supporting this move to get the trrops out, the President is appealing for troops to stay , his interest is in his (sort of)automonous region . His neighbours are threatening to invade as part of their "war on terror" and he doesn't really want that very much and hopes a coilition presence will stop it happening .
But anyhow , since you are going back to the unfinished constitution , how about going back slightly further to the elections ...try and find which parties stood on a manifesto that didn't call for an end to foriegn troops in Iraq .:yes: See if you can find even one .
But hey they are politicians aren't they , just because they said they would end the foriegn presence if elected it doesn't mean that they have to deliver on that pledge , its how democracy works isn't it :laugh4:

Personally, I think the US ought to leap at the chance. Any pretext of a vote asking us to leave we should jump on and get the :daisy: out of there. When all the naysayers, like Michael Moore, try to triumphantly proclaim that we got beaten by the insurgents, we can point to the resolution and state proudly "nope, respecting the autonomy we fought to establish, as we always claimed we would". I don't think there's going to be anything even remotely as good an exit strategy as this ploy right here...

its not that we're getting beat by the insurgents, its that its impossible for us to 'win' against insurgents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

its not that we're getting beat by the insurgents, its that its impossible for us to 'win' against insurgents.

---

Agreed. It's simply not a task that a traditional military force is capable of, and definitely not if they have any moral restraint, either in the troops themselves or the civilian populace back home.

Ajax

There's only one way that has proven successful in bringing an end to a popular insurgency and that is heavy hearts and minds and actually bringing the insurgents to the bargaining table.

Since hearts and minds is currently buggered in Iraq due to the lack of security and Bush won't negotiate, the only way there's going to be peace is if you slaughter enough people that the rest become pacifists.

And the Assyrian school of counter-insurgency methods is sort of not okay these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

And the Assyrian school of counter-insurgency methods is sort of not okay these days.

---

Do you mean, those ancient assyrian tactics that brutilize civs?

or is this actualy modern?

plus it doesnt help your public reasons for going to war if you end up massacring most of the population... oh yeah, we're already doing that ;)

I'm not aware of any particularly modern associations for the name "Assyrian".
:inquisitive:
Crucifying, impaling and forcibly relocating seditious populaces just isn't kosher these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

I'm not aware of any particularly modern associations for the name "Assyrian".

---

Assyrians are one of the main ethnic/religious minorities in modern Iraq, and one of the most frequently persecuted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_Church

Ajax

edit: this one's actually slightly more relevant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_people

All hail the mighty insurgent warrior. Undefeatable by any conventional force and therefore the inevitable winner in the guerilla. :rolleyes3:

Poppycock.

1. If insurgency were so unbeatable, then all wars would be conducted in this fashion and it would have become conventional. Militaries, over time, tend to adopt whatever works. Ethan Allen and Francis Marion did not win the revolution and found a nation. Arnold, Washington, Rochambeau, and De Grasse did.

2. Historically, most insurgencies/rebellions have failed.

3. The USA has one of the highest rates of success in these "small wars" of any nation on the planet. The mechanics of suppressing insurgency is actually pretty well understood.


The key question really is: is the conventional power willing to pay the price in blood and treasure to win? The guerilla wins ONLY when the conventional opponent chooses to quit or when the guerilla becomes able to contend with the conventional force on its own terms.

Huh. I must admit I had no idea the Assyrians were still around as a distinct group. Live and learn.

Neither did I, until they came up in a class I took this last semester. Anyhow, I think I learn new things on this board nearly every time I log on.

Ajax

no one thinks about Chaldeans these days either, or Persians for that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The key question really is: is the conventional power willing to pay the price in blood and treasure to win? The guerilla wins ONLY when the conventional opponent chooses to quit or when the guerilla becomes able to contend with the conventional force on its own terms.

---

Quoted for truth. :yes:

You mean it isn't self-evident ?