Comments on Informed Comment: Sistani Forbids Feeding Americans; Warns against ...

It seems to me that the "Kurd option" of having mi...

2008-05-25T21:43:00.000-04:00

It seems to me that the "Kurd option" of having military bases in Kurdish territory is flawed because the only reason the Kurdish territories haven't been up in arms is that the US troops and bases haven't been there in large numbers. If bases are relocated there the conditions are changed and the Bush administration seems typically blind to such realities.

(Mostly for powwow@7:28PM) Mr. HUNTER. ...You know...

2008-05-25T19:48:00.000-04:00

(Mostly for powwow@7:28PM)

Mr. HUNTER. ...You know, when the Secretary of Defense comes in, testifies to our committee that there will be no commitments manifest in this particular SOFA with respect to security, he testifies to us to that effect, the idea that we say we are not going to believe him, and certain members of the other side don't like the President so they come down to say anything he does now has to be ratified by Congress, I think that disparages the process, Mr. Chairman.

It is just barely possible that there might be a non-GOP administration during the political lifetime of the honourable and gallant Duncan Hunter. One believes -- one believes absolutely and without question! -- that he will or would grant the same allowances to "President B. Hussein Obama" that he wants to grab for George XLIII and Comrade Secretary Gates at the moment. There can be no future difficulties on that score, honour and gallantry bein’ what they are amongst belligerent Republicans!

My guess is Sistani is trying to head off a potent...

2008-05-25T18:20:00.000-04:00

My guess is Sistani is trying to head off a potential conflict with Iran, which may be imminent, and therefore he wants a radical change in direction of the Maliki government as well as of the US military engagement in Iraq. Sistani would not publicly seek to undermine the Iraqi government, but the US probably needs to be prepared to as quickly as possible move to a much slimmed-down presence in Iraq that isn't a threat to Iran. Also the US needs much better trained troops on Iraqi religious sensibilities, which is probably where some of this is originating from.

A. So Who Needs ‘Informed Opinion’? Just a few y...

2008-05-25T16:33:00.000-04:00

A. So Who Needs ‘Informed Opinion’?

Just a few years ago we had polls indicating that the American public knew so little about foreign affairs that they believed that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11. (...) Now ... we are being told the public has made a splendid recovery. (...) Zogby reports that 75 percent of Americans say they are well-informed about the war.

This is something of a surprise. In past polls Americans have admitted that they barely follow events. But should we take Americans' statements at face value? It would be naive to do so. A majority of Americans do not know that we have 3 branches of government. Do we suppose they don't know this but they do know what's going on in Iraq, a country only 1 in 7 can find Iraq on the map [sic], according to National Geographic? (...) Bush haters will find it easy to conclude that the former Yale C student has trouble following events in a war he started. But it is a stretch to believe that the public, which is notoriously inattentive, possesses superior knowledge.

B. Nobody Really Wants ‘Informed Opinion’

The second part of the headline ["Americans Say They're Well-Informed, But Dissatisfied With Coverage of Iraq War"] is equally problematic. According to Poynter, ordinary Americans want more stories about the course the war is actually taking. By contrast journalists, Poynter says, believe the public wants more stories about the impact of the war at home. Are journalists deluded? I don't think so. (...) Juan Cole suggests that journalists should consider giving Americans more war news. I agree that they should. But I don't for a minute believe that Americans actually want war news. All the evidence we have about Americans suggests that they want news that makes them feel good about themselves. War news doesn't.

C. What Is Really Going On Here (according to Sir Oracle)

Americans long ago gave up on the war ... and they don't really want to be reminded of it. They want it over. They don't much care how it ends. One of the reasons Barack Obama has outdistanced Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination is that he has offered a pain-free end to the war that she can't convincingly make since she voted for it. President Bush ... was not wrong in thinking that the public wanted to ignore the war.

(Happy days.)

Thanks to pow wow for this important transcript. I...

2008-05-25T14:39:00.000-04:00

Thanks to pow wow for this important transcript. I've been an advocate for a longtime that SOFAs ought to be voted on as treaties, just as trade agreements are, as they carry the same if not greater weight and impact on both the USA and the other country involved. That they are not is directly tied to the explosion in the US Imperial basing system.

As for Sistani's recent statements, I have awaited them for sometime and would call them his counterattack against the occupiers. Several critical events are converging--US and Iraqi elections, and the UNSC enabling act's expiration--causing the war criminals and their propaganda system allies to become even more desperate than they are already. The seemingly mild fatwa about not supplying the occupiers with any sustinence, IMO, is far from mild--it esentially says no one is to cooperate/provide support for the occupiers, which condemns the Maliki government as traitors for "appeasing" the occupiers.

"...the proposed mutual security agreement between...

2008-05-25T13:28:00.000-04:00

"...the proposed mutual security agreement between the United States and Iraq that is intended to serve as a Status of Forces Agreement after the United Nations Security Council authorization for US troops to be in Iraq expires in December."

I'd just point out that a boilerplate, standard StatusOfForcesAgreement is what Duncan Hunter was insisting on the House floor Thursday (5/22) was being negotiated with Iraq, in an attempt to defeat (and thus cut the U.S. Congress out of the decision about our future in Iraq), a crucial amendment to the Defense Authorization bill offered by Barbara Lee of CA, who pointed out with help from her colleagues that a standard 'SOFA' is not what is under negotiation in this case:

Ms. LEE. I want to be clear, though, that this amendment is not about redeploying our troops from Iraq, a position that I strongly support, nor is it about timelines or reconstruction or oil or the various other debates raging around our occupation of Iraq. We can't undo the suffering, the death, the horrible injuries, the deep psychological scars, or the millions of lives that are forever altered, and we can't erase the misrepresentations made, the mistakes made, or the damage done. But we can, however, prevent future mistakes. And it would be a disastrous mistake to let the current declaration move forward without congressional debate and approval.

So this amendment is about the future. Do we want the next President and Congress to inherit a situation where our troops are committed to fight Iraqi civil wars and any entity the Iraqis deem a threat? Do we really want that? Do we want to do that without even having debated it or allowing congressional review? Do we really want that?

This is about standing up for Congress and the Constitution. Again, this amendment is responsible, practical, and necessary. For these reasons, I urge all Members to support my amendment.

[snip]

Mr. HUNTER. ...But this Status of Forces Agreement is something that we've done now in over 80-some countries. And it's not a guarantee of security. It's not a guarantee of defense. It is not and should not be considered as a treaty.

[snip]

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, once again, these Status of Forces Agreements, which are pretty run of the mill, do not manifest security commitments by the United States to protect the countries that they are made with.

[snip]

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, as we speak, the administration is negotiating a strategic framework agreement with Iraq that goes well beyond the typical Status of Forces Agreement. Contrary to what my colleague, Mr. Hunter says, from California, essentially it does amount to a treaty. Read the words of the Declaration of Principles. It will need to be ratified by the Iraqi Parliament and therefore it must be ratified by the United States Congress as well. This is the issue that goes to the heart of our constitutional duties as a Congress and the power to declare war, with which we have been entrusted as representatives.

[snip]

Mr. HUNTER. ...You know, when the Secretary of Defense comes in, testifies to our committee that there will be no commitments manifest in this particular SOFA with respect to security, he testifies to us to that effect, the idea that we say we are not going to believe him, and certain members of the other side don't like the President so they come down to say anything he does now has to be ratified by Congress, I think that disparages the process, Mr. Chairman.

[snip]

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, this is first-year law school discussion. If you read the amendment offered by the gentlelady, it makes reference to 1212(a)(1)(a)(4). It applies only to this. I read that section: "Any security agreement, arrangement, or assurance that obligates the United States to respond to internal or external threats against Iraq." That doesn't say a thing, not a blooming thing about Status of Forces Agreement. So that is what we are talking about. That is why a treaty is required or a consent of Congress.

Mr. HUNTER. Just one other point, and that is in the U.N. Security Council Resolution, under which our troops operate now, which provides for how they are treated in Iraq, expires in December. That is why we need to have a Status of Forces Agreement. If we don't have, and we now elevate this to a treaty, and Congress doesn't act on the treaty, they will lose their protection when the United Nations provision expires.

[snip]

It will be the 81st SOFA that we have had without requiring Congress to ratify it.

At this point, at the conclusion of the debate on the floor, the Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee inserted a statement in the record, in strong support of Rep. Lee's amendment, which included an important revelation:

Mr. BERMAN. ...Mr. Chairman, this is not an esoteric or hypothetical situation. This past weekend I was in Baghdad with Speaker PELOSI's delegation. It's quite clear from our discussions there that the government of Iraq at the highest level expects that any strategic framework or other agreement between the United States and Iraq will include a legally binding security commitment that would require the United States to respond to threats against Iraq.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2008_record&page=H4775&position=all

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2008_record&page=H4776&position=all

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2008_record&page=H4777&position=all

Barbara Lee's amendment did pass. Of course, so did $600 Billion in authorization for more military-industrial-complex spending, without any limit on our open-ended intervention in Iraq (by way of the FY 2009 defense policy bill in which such decisions about national "defense" policy are usually conveyed to the president).

So I think that what we're seeing now is really a...

2008-05-25T13:22:00.000-04:00

So I think that what we're seeing now is really a struggle between factions in Iraq. Each party has its own militia. And al-Maliki is serving some militias rather than others, and they are positioning themselves for these elections in November of provincial assemblies.

And Iraq hangs in the balance, because the Sadr movement, if there are free and fair elections, could well sweep to power in Baghdad province and in much of the Shiite south.

I've just read the script of your pbs interview. I find it always interesting to read you at Salon.com or in other interviews, because you are often offering a more analytical approach than in your daily blog.

I agree concerning what you said here concerning the Sadr movement. However you always seem to speak as if the Americans were not occupying Iraq, as if Al'Maliki was an independant government and the Iraqi conflict only consisted of sectarian fights between Iraqi. Don't forget the main player and the great divider there, aka the US : you American are no neutral players in Iraq; and one can be sure that the US will try everything to see another US friendly government following that of Al'Maliki.

"The arrests were apparently made during prayer ti...

2008-05-25T12:20:00.000-04:00

"The arrests were apparently made during prayer times in largely Shiite, Sadrist areas such as Bayaa."
Bedevilry, SOP for Bush Royals and their sycophants. Change in November? Hmmm.

Sistani may have been forced to take a stand on th...

2008-05-25T10:56:00.000-04:00

Sistani may have been forced to take a stand on this issue because his clerical peers and rivals are coming out vocally on it.

Why do you make that hypothese that he was forced to do it ? Do you have any clear hints to that fact ?
Personnally, I think there is possible lecture of his recent words.

1) Above all, Sistani as a cleric seems opposed to violence, especially to violence between Iraqi and between Shiites.
2) From his previous intervention against the caucus system and for free elections, we can also deduce that he has the Iraqi independance at heart.
3) With the US troops mission coming to an official end in December and the risk that the puppet government of Al'Maliki could sign an agreement allowing US bases to become permanent, it's not so surprising to hear from Sistani again.
4) In his view, the opposition to the occupation and to the Status of force agreement may be a unique occasion to reunite all the Shiites and perhaps also all the Iraqi. It makes sense and if he is as wise as his reputation says, I don't see why he would have to be forced to speak against the occupation.
Anyway, things seem to be moving now in Iraq and I hope that they escape to both the status agreement and the oil law the US want them to sign.