Little to Celebrate in Iraq
by Robert Dreyfuss
The Nation Blog: 06/30/2009
There's little to celebrate about the US pullback in Iraq.
More than six years after the US invasion, Iraq is shattered. Hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis are dead -- far more, incidentally, than even the
largest estimates of the number of Iraqis who died during 35 years of Saddam
Hussein's rule -- its social fabric is utterly destroyed, its economy is in
ruins, and its dominant political faction is in hock to neighboring Iran.
And now what?
As we pull back, we're leaving Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in charge.
Increasingly, Maliki is taking on the trappings of a dictator. He's
established a network of security agencies that report directly to him. He's
built a countrywide patronage system to bribe and pay off tribal allies, in
anticipation of 2010 elections. He's shown no compunction against using the
army, the police, and the secret agencies he controls to eliminate rivals.
He's used divide-and-conquer tactics to outflank the Sunni-led sahwa
movement, known as the Awakening or the Sons of Iraq, driving some of them
back into armed resistance and others into sullen resentment or fear for
their lives.
And Maliki, despite his protestations that he is a born-again "nationalist,"
has close ties to Iran. With Iran now revealed as a fundamentalist-run,
naked military dictatorship, I expect Iran to act ruthlessly vis-a-vis Iraq,
and if he wants to stay in power Maliki will pretty much have to go along.
A prominent Sunni activist from northern Iraq told me yesterday that anyone
who thinks about opposing Maliki in Iraq has to fear for his or her life.
The fact remains that despite the resurgence of secular nationalism in Iraq,
as evidenced by the results of provincial elections last February, Maliki
sits atop a conspiratorial little party called Al Dawa, a fundamentalist
Islamist grouping, and he is reliant on a small, secretive clique that
surrounds him. During the February election, in order to appeal to Iraqi
voters, Maliki posed as a nationalist of sorts, but in fact he is dependent
on two outside powers. First, he's dependent on the United States, for
despite his bravado about the US withdrawal from Iraq's cities, Maliki
desperately needs American backing to remain in power, to build up his armed
forces. And second, Maliki is dependent on the good will of Iran, who could
topple him instantly if he crossed Tehran.
And Obama?
It's clear that Obama doesn't want to think about Iraq. It seems like he's
hoping it just goes away, so he can worry about Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan
and Israel-Palestine. But Iraq's not going away.
During the campaign, Obama promised to convene an international, United
Nations-led conference on Iraq. That's exactly what he ought to do: allow
the US to step back, and let the world community step in to help Iraq
reconcile its warring factions. The goal of the meeting ought to be to
rewrite Iraq's absurd Constitution, which empowers the ruling ethnic and
sectarian parties (i.e., the Shiite religious bloc, including Dawa, and the
Kurds) who wrote it. Short of that, Iraq is likely to explode at some point,
either this year, in advance of the 2010 elections, or soon thereafter. As
the US presence in Iraq shrinks, Maliki will have less and less incentive to
cooperate with any UN effort. As it is, he'd fight it tooth and nail, and it
may already be too late.
Fixing Iraq means two things. First, it means that the world community has
to step in to empower the secular (anti-religious party) nationalist forces
that have been shut out of power by Maliki, including both Sunni elites and
secular Shiites, such as former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and countless
others. Only they can restore a semblance of true central government in a
shattered country, make a deal with the expansionist Kurds over autonomy and
Kirkuk, the oil-rich city in the north, and start to rebuild Iraq as a
nation- state. And second, it means that Obama has to come to an
understanding with Iran over Iraq, one that involves the full participation
of Iraq's neighbors, including Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey, so that
neither the United States nor Iran seek to use Iraq as a battlefield for
their competing ambitions in the region.
***
From: pdlavote@aol.com
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/43996http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/43996
The Emperor's Seven Signing Statements
Evidence
"The problem is that the Constitution requires the president to veto
a bill or sign and faithfully execute it. The time to argue against the
constitutionality of a provision is before a bill is passed or upon vetoing
it. Such an argument can even be made upon signing a bill. It just
can't be accompanied by a declaration of the power to violate the law."
By David Swanson
June 28, 2009
Lawless detention is the least of it. State secrets and warrantless spying
scrape the surface. Drone attacks and ongoing torture begin to touch it. But
central to the power of an emperor, and the catastrophes that come from the
existence of an emperor, is the elimination of any other force within the
government. Signing statements eliminate congress. Not that congress
objects. Asking congress to reclaim its power produces nervous giggles.
Look at how the latest war supplemental funding bill was passed. The
Emperor's people wrote most of the bill. The Emperor combined it with the
IMF banker bailout. The Emperor threatened and bribed his way to deals with
enough congress members to pass it. The Emperor preemptively told other
nations the bill would pass and then badgered congress with the claim that
this nation (He, the nation) would be damaged if he turned out to have lied.
The Emperor lied to congress members and the public that this would be the
last war supplemental bill. Congress members claimed to back it because it
was the last one (not that this made the slightest sense), and others
openly, proudly, and obliviously declared that they were switching their
votes to yes in order to please the Emperor.
When the bill came to Emperor Barack he signed it and released his sixth and
only legal signing statement announcing that he'd signed it. Two days later
(Fridays being the favored day for signing statements) Obama released his
seventh signing statement, claiming to have signed the same bill on that day
as well, but perhaps beginning to establish the precedent that "signing
statements," like "executive orders," can be issued at any time.
The seventh signing statement did what the first five had done: it illegally
and unconstitutionally altered the law in favor of bestowing illegal powers
on the Emperor. The seven statements are posted here.
Here's the heart of the seventh statement:
"[P]rovisions of this bill within sections 1110 to 1112 of title XI, and
sections 1403 and 1404 of title XIV, would interfere with my constitutional
authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take
certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international
organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the
congress prior to such negotiations or discussions. I will not treat these
provisions as limiting my ability to engage in foreign diplomacy or
negotiations."
An executive would be someone who executed the laws of congress, suggesting
that a different capitalized E word is actually intended, that "Executive"
is now a stand-in for "Emperor." Similarly, "constitutional" in this context
refers to dictionary.com's third definition of "constitution", namely "the
aggregate of a person's physical and psychological characteristics." In
other words, "constitutional authority" is "imperial authority" derived from
the character of the Emperor. We know this because the U.S. Constitution
does not create any presidential authority to conduct foreign relations
(only to "receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers") but does require
the advice and consent and two-thirds approval of the Senate in order to
make treaties, and does give congress the power "to regulate Commerce with
foreign nations" as well as complete20power over the raising and spending of
public funds, not to mention the power "To make all Laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and
all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United
States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
The sections of this latest law tossed out by Obama were ploys to win the
bill's passage, including requirements that he work to strengthen labor and
environmental standards at, and report to congress on the activities of, the
IMF and the World Bank. Unlike an emperor, an executive would be required by
the U.S. Constitution to "take Care that the Laws by faithfully executed,"
stated by candidate Barack Obama thus:
"I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional
instructions as enacted into law."
Obama's first signing statement made part of the law his right to use the
hundreds of billions of dollars appropriated in that bill in "new" and
"far-reaching" ways that he would "initiate," as well as the understanding
that an "oversight board" created by the executive branch -- rather than
congress -- would oversee the activities of the executive branch, or as
Obama calls it "the Federal Government."
Obama's second signing statement declared his intention to violate dozens of
sections of the law he was signing, including sections providing for the
spending of funds, sections related to the creation of international
treaties, and sections restricting retaliation against whistleblowers.
Obama's third signing statement, on the "Omnibus Public Land Management Act
of 2009," announced his intention to violate requirements in the law related
to the appointment of a government commission.
Obama's fourth signing statement, on a bill creating a "Financial Crisis
Inquiry Commission" threw out a requirement that the Emperor provide that
commission with information.
Obama's fifth signing statement was applied to a bill that created a
commission and included on it six members of congress. The signing statement
declared that those six commission members .
"will be able to participate only in ceremonial or advisory functions of
[such a] Commission, and not in matters involving the administration of the
act."
Is it time to stop endlessly being "shocked" by these yet? Obama, like Bush,
argues in his signing statements that the sections of law he intends to
violate are unconstitutional. The problem is not that either one of these
presidents is necessarily always wrong or that such questions can ever be
decided to everyone's satisfaction. The problem is that the Constitution
requires the president to veto a bill or sign and faithfully execute it. The
time to argue against the constitutionality of a provision is before a bill
is passed or upon vetoing it. Such an argument=2 0can even be made upon
signing a bill. It just can't be accompanied by a declaration of the power
to violate the law.
Presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton made innovations in the abuse of
signing statements without which Bush Jr. could not have done what he did.
Now Obama is further advancing the genre. At some point, of course -- as
Germans once learned (and learned before nukes or climate crises were on the
table) -- it can become too late to act.
_______________________________________________
PDLA mailing list
PDLA@svpal.org
http://mailman.svpal.org/mailman/listinfo/pdla
No comments:
Post a Comment