No, not exactly correct. Occupation entails contested authority. There’s a reason the war treason category of crimes does not exist anymore. Plus, just war theories and international law were meant to be casuistic. While yes, the Iraqi government at least nominally holds legitimate authority, the fact that its military and security structure is run through another country pretty much means that it’s under occupation according to international law. For example, Syria was occupying Lebanon up until this year (although it may still have units there), despite the responsiveness of the Lebanese government to that Syrian presence. Similarly with the US and Iraq. You’re playing on a technicality that is not reflective of political and military reality, and no one serious politician or analyst is going to defend your argument. As long as US forces are in Iraq, it’s an occupation.
No that is not correct. We’re not in charge of the country. We’re keeping it secure because Iraq has no military. Once they get theirs trained, we can leave. Isn’t that the correct way to do it?
You cannot compare the US to Syria. Syria occupied Lebanon because THEY WANTED TO OWN IT. We liberated Iraq and are keeping it safe for the Iraqi people. We haven’t made one dime on Iraqi land and haven’t taken over anything and claimed it as our own. Do you know of any examples of us taking Iraqi territory for ourselves and declaring it a part of America. Watch out yourself for your claims as they are incorrect.
I mean after all, NATO is in the Balkans and doesn’t own any terrotiry there. Does that make them occupiers? What about the UN peacekeeping forces in Pakistan and India?
Now, this is not to say that occupation is illegitimate. Far from it. However, a responsibility of the occupant, and something it should prepare for, is that authority will be contested in occupation. Look at the former Yugoslavian countries. Carla Delaponte has the power to restrict or rescind democratic action (elections of ultra-nationalistic politicians), which I believe is fully legitimate, although something that should be done cautiously and transparently. However, those politicians still had a clearly expressed and legitimate basis of support among the sovereign (the people). Occupation, sometimes unfortunately, can be thought of as a battle for legitimacy, and it’s really difficult to say one is “right” or “wrong.”
This is not an occupation. We could have been out of there sooner if people didn’t feel the need to start killing civilians and trying to overthrow the new Iraqi government. There is no battle for legitimacy. The Iraqi people voted. They chose their goverment. What more do you want?
Also, be careful with the term "unlawful combatant." Again, you’re citing only one part of the Geneva Convention, and frankly, I don’t think really know what that term means. It exists in the penumbra of international legal discourse, as a repository category since, if there are soldiers who fight legally (according to the laws of war), then there should be those who fight illegally. But notice here that they are combatants, subject to and protected by the Geneva Conventions’ terms on combatant rights. The classification of their status has already been established
Quite simply an unlawful combatant is anyone trying to kill without a uniform. Example: The Viet Cong. Also The German infiltration units during the Battle of the Buldge. Muslim terrorists without uniforms trying to kill American and Coalition soliders also fall into this category. Basically the Geneva convention was to try to make combat more "humane" and that anyone stepping outside the bounds of being a “normal soldier” shouldn’t be protected. I don’t know how combat can be more humane, but I think the main premise was to have uniformed soldiers fighting so each could distinguish the other. I figured that much out and I don’t even have a political science degree.
The point I’m trying to make is that nothing in the Conventions allows for the creation of a null category that the US can put any unpleasant individual into and do whatever it wants to them. More strongly, it is illegal under international law, and if you want to throw it out, then go ahead. But be aware of Powell’s concerns, that disregarding international law increases the likelihood of those actions to be done to US soldiers. In addition, as I said, you abandon the rule of law, and thus, the US has lost in a significant way.
What about the muslim terrorists cutting people’s heads off? Are you outraged about that or only when American’s may or may not do it to others?
Also, don’t forget that with IEDs and RPGs, even those people who use them can be considered legitimate combatants. It’s really actions like suicide bombings against civilians which calls into question their actions.
While wearing proper uniform. I mean, most people in WWII that used these weapons were wearing uniforms.
RB, you’ve got to watch out for logical leaps. I’m sure no one on this board liked Saddam’s regime. But you cannot logically castigate people for exploring alternative policies to assist the Iraqi people short of war and then claim they support Saddam. It’s only because you’ve set up Saddam as more evil than any other value can you make that argument. But there are a lot of bad things out there, and it’s an open question whether the controlled anarchy defining Iraqi existence now is actually better than the ordered violence of Saddam. There are still people in Iraq who do not belong to a terrorist organization or a resistance movement or were former members of the Baath party who nevertheless wish Saddam were there. Consequently, some analysis of the run up to war and alternative policies is a very fruitful thing, in part because it acknowledges mistakes that were made, creates an opportunity to rectify them, and evinces to the Iraqi people that there is accountability in the US government.
My friend, you and other’s like you like Mary want to continue to harp on whether or not Saddam could have been peacfully disarmed and that war could have been avoided. But let me ask you this and I want you to answer truthfully, In the 12 years from the end of the first gulf war to 2003, did Saddam ever do anything that would have enhanced the prospects of a peacful solution? What else could have been done. The man snubbed his nose at the world for 12 years and no one stopped him. He even obtained military hardware from nations like France and Russia (against the terms of the cease-fire in '91 by the way). So please tell me…what else could have been done to free the Iraqi people except the removal of Hussein? What else? I’m not the one making the big leap here, I’m the one seeing the picture for what it is. People like Hussein would never change.
Finally, as I’ve written to others before, the standard “hard-nosed” argument that people don’t see the inherent evil in the world is faulty, to say the least. What defines politics, and frankly almost anything else, is complexity. Boiler-plate responses about who’s good, who’s bad, who’s right, and who’s evil fail to acknowledge that there are a lot of people stuck in the middle who, quite frankly, are the most important individuals to be looking out for. Occupations are hard because there are many different actors who have their own interests, most of which are probably legitimate. Always projecting the worst intentions on anyone you see, and not recognizing their limitations, strengths, weaknesses, and advantages, causes overextension and failure to win the hearts and minds campaign. After all, if you start seeing enemies in all places, and then acting upon that, you lose an occupation. Look at Vietnam, Algeria, Lebanon, Armenia, etc.
And look at the United States and her true allies fighting every day for the safety and freedom of the Iraqi people. Who else has done more for them? Has France helped them with all their dealings with Saddam. No. It is the constant selflessness of the American solider that pays in blood for the freedom of others even when they themselves may not appreciate it (just look at France since WWII). It is us and always us. I am proud to be an American that I can idolize men and women like that. Huurraah!
Rune Blade
The Master of Debate
