by Dallas Darling.
"The American pact is nothing but humiliation to the Iraqis. This is against the interest and the sovereignty of the Iraq people and no none should put himself in a position to sign it...such a pact with the Americans who destroyed Iraq since 1991 and killed millions of its children by two wars and 12 years of barbaric sanction followed by occupation, such a pact is nothing but an aggression not against Iraq alone but against Islam and other Muslims." -Hammorabi, an Iraqi blogger protesting against SOFA and U.S. military occupation, 2008.(1)
Despite a clear majority of Iraqis (and Americans) who for years have wanted United States occupation forces to leave their country, commanders and officials in the Pentagon and United States are desperately trying to hammer out an agreement for a continued military presence past the December 31 departure date of this year. By using bribes, pay-offs for "collateral damage", threats and extortion, and by manipulating the media, it appears the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex just might get its way in permanently stationing up to 10,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, forever and with "legal immunity." But for both Iraqis and Americans, should it not really be considered "illegal impunity?"
Over one-hundred treaties exist between the United States, or the "sending state," and nations where it bases military forces, or the "host nation." This arrangement is called the status of forces agreement (SOFA). SOFA specifies the conditions under which the host nation assumes jurisdiction to prosecute U.S. military personnel for criminal offenses. The Pentagon and U.S. Government considers its military personnel stationed abroad to be representatives of their sovereign power and thus, protected with sovereign immunity from host nation criminal prosecutions. If a host nation believes a soldier has committed a crime, under SOFA the soldier is either expelled or tried by the U.S. military.
For six decades, the Pentagon and U.S. have carefully crafted SOFAs in such a way to give its soldiers broad immunity from prosecution for crimes committed against innocent civilians and environmental damage created.(2) Through a process of invasion-occupation-colonization, broad immunity (impunity?) for U.S. forces was imposed. These unequal treaties allowed for a continued presence of U.S. "standing armies."(3) After America's preemptive war and occupation of Iraq, dozens of "enduring camps" became permanent fixtures in Iraq. Hundreds of military posts and air fields, covering 15-20 square miles and built on lands seized from Iraqis, waste billions of dollars and pollute the environment.(4)
U.S. SOFA agreements have also eliminated sovereignty for both Iraqis and Americans who have to pay for expensive military outposts. For Americans, SOFAs are completely controlled by the Pentagon and president without significant input from Congressional representatives which are elected by the people.(5) For Iraqis and other host nations, numerous examples abound how U.S. troops escaped accountability from such crimes as rape, murder and torture.(6) The Pentagon's rules of engagement in Iraq were so erratic and often irrelevant that most soldiers and Marines said it was accepted policy to ignore them and shoot if they felt threatened.(7)
Since World War II, tens of thousands of innocent civilians have been killed in many countries by U.S. military occupation forces and their heavily fortified checkpoints, botched military raids, armed convoys, and illegal detentions. SOFA has made compulsory subjective rights and foreign norms causing thousands of retaliatory attacks. SOFA has also undermined the principles of American ideals. By placing SOFA under the Executive Branch, by quartering large bodies of troops in foreign nations, by funding a professional standing "mercenary" army-which colonists despised, and by making the Military superior to Civil Power, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution has been subverted.
While SOFA treaties make American representative democracy seem hypocritical, like to those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, such agreements will, and have, come to haunt U.S. citizens. Commanders-In-Chief act with impunity, as does the Pentagon that "defines" who the enemy is-right or wrong, and then "assigns" to kill the enemy-right or wrong.(8) This kind of delusional and pathological governance is destructive and implosive. It may be cost-effective for a number of years to exploit the resources of a colony or manufacture an enemy, but the rising tide of nationalism and the demand for self-determination eventually make the price of trying to maintain control too high.(9)
Iraq's Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and dozens of other groups, all with millions of followers, have made it their mission to drive U.S. military troops from Iraq. At the same time, SOFA in Iraq has escalated tensions with Iran, Russia and China. Meanwhile, the cost of weapons and of maintaining a military empire-through SOFA-requires internal repression of freedom and the draining of valuable resources needed for domestic prosperity.(10) As America moves towards divesting more and more of its much needed social and infrastructure services, mainly due to SOFAs and its wars, Hammorabi's words of grief and protests will soon be applicable to Americans, if not already so.
Dallas Darling (darling@wn.com)
(Dallas Darling is the author of Politics 501: An A-Z Reading on Conscientious Political Thought and Action, Some Nations Above God: 52 Weekly Reflections On Modern-Day Imperialism, Militarism, And Consumerism in the Context of John's Apocalyptic Vision, and The Other Side Of Christianity: Reflections on Faith, Politics, Spirituality, History, and Peace. He is a correspondent for www.worldnews.com. You can read more of Dallas' writings at www.beverlydarling.com and wn.com//dallasdarling.)
(1) Otterman, Michael, Richard Hil and Paul Wilson. Erasing Iraq: The Human Costs Of Carnage. New York, New York: Pluto Press, 2010., p. 39.
(2) Lutz, Catherin. The Bases of Empire: The Global Struggle Against U.S. Military Posts. Washington Square, New York: New York University Press, 2009., p. 13.
(3) Ibid., p. 50.
(4) Ibid., p. 134.
(5) Ibid., p. 141.
(6) See Catherine Lutz The Bases of Empire and Chapter on "Geopolitical Conditions of Okinawa in U.S. Military Strategies", p. 244-253.
(7) Hedges, Chris and Laila Al-Arian. Collateral Damage: America's War Against Iraq Civilians. New York, New York: Nation Books, 2008., p. 39.
(8) Keen, Sam. Faces Of The Enemy: Reflections Of The Hostile Imagination. New York, New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1986., p. 12.
(9) Ibid., p. 165.
(10) Ibid., p. 165.
Despite a clear majority of Iraqis (and Americans) who for years have wanted United States occupation forces to leave their country, commanders and officials in the Pentagon and United States are desperately trying to hammer out an agreement for a continued military presence past the December 31 departure date of this year. By using bribes, pay-offs for "collateral damage", threats and extortion, and by manipulating the media, it appears the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex just might get its way in permanently stationing up to 10,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, forever and with "legal immunity." But for both Iraqis and Americans, should it not really be considered "illegal impunity?"
Over one-hundred treaties exist between the United States, or the "sending state," and nations where it bases military forces, or the "host nation." This arrangement is called the status of forces agreement (SOFA). SOFA specifies the conditions under which the host nation assumes jurisdiction to prosecute U.S. military personnel for criminal offenses. The Pentagon and U.S. Government considers its military personnel stationed abroad to be representatives of their sovereign power and thus, protected with sovereign immunity from host nation criminal prosecutions. If a host nation believes a soldier has committed a crime, under SOFA the soldier is either expelled or tried by the U.S. military.
For six decades, the Pentagon and U.S. have carefully crafted SOFAs in such a way to give its soldiers broad immunity from prosecution for crimes committed against innocent civilians and environmental damage created.(2) Through a process of invasion-occupation-colonization, broad immunity (impunity?) for U.S. forces was imposed. These unequal treaties allowed for a continued presence of U.S. "standing armies."(3) After America's preemptive war and occupation of Iraq, dozens of "enduring camps" became permanent fixtures in Iraq. Hundreds of military posts and air fields, covering 15-20 square miles and built on lands seized from Iraqis, waste billions of dollars and pollute the environment.(4)
U.S. SOFA agreements have also eliminated sovereignty for both Iraqis and Americans who have to pay for expensive military outposts. For Americans, SOFAs are completely controlled by the Pentagon and president without significant input from Congressional representatives which are elected by the people.(5) For Iraqis and other host nations, numerous examples abound how U.S. troops escaped accountability from such crimes as rape, murder and torture.(6) The Pentagon's rules of engagement in Iraq were so erratic and often irrelevant that most soldiers and Marines said it was accepted policy to ignore them and shoot if they felt threatened.(7)
Since World War II, tens of thousands of innocent civilians have been killed in many countries by U.S. military occupation forces and their heavily fortified checkpoints, botched military raids, armed convoys, and illegal detentions. SOFA has made compulsory subjective rights and foreign norms causing thousands of retaliatory attacks. SOFA has also undermined the principles of American ideals. By placing SOFA under the Executive Branch, by quartering large bodies of troops in foreign nations, by funding a professional standing "mercenary" army-which colonists despised, and by making the Military superior to Civil Power, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution has been subverted.
While SOFA treaties make American representative democracy seem hypocritical, like to those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, such agreements will, and have, come to haunt U.S. citizens. Commanders-In-Chief act with impunity, as does the Pentagon that "defines" who the enemy is-right or wrong, and then "assigns" to kill the enemy-right or wrong.(8) This kind of delusional and pathological governance is destructive and implosive. It may be cost-effective for a number of years to exploit the resources of a colony or manufacture an enemy, but the rising tide of nationalism and the demand for self-determination eventually make the price of trying to maintain control too high.(9)
Iraq's Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and dozens of other groups, all with millions of followers, have made it their mission to drive U.S. military troops from Iraq. At the same time, SOFA in Iraq has escalated tensions with Iran, Russia and China. Meanwhile, the cost of weapons and of maintaining a military empire-through SOFA-requires internal repression of freedom and the draining of valuable resources needed for domestic prosperity.(10) As America moves towards divesting more and more of its much needed social and infrastructure services, mainly due to SOFAs and its wars, Hammorabi's words of grief and protests will soon be applicable to Americans, if not already so.
Dallas Darling (darling@wn.com)
(Dallas Darling is the author of Politics 501: An A-Z Reading on Conscientious Political Thought and Action, Some Nations Above God: 52 Weekly Reflections On Modern-Day Imperialism, Militarism, And Consumerism in the Context of John's Apocalyptic Vision, and The Other Side Of Christianity: Reflections on Faith, Politics, Spirituality, History, and Peace. He is a correspondent for www.worldnews.com. You can read more of Dallas' writings at www.beverlydarling.com and wn.com//dallasdarling.)
(1) Otterman, Michael, Richard Hil and Paul Wilson. Erasing Iraq: The Human Costs Of Carnage. New York, New York: Pluto Press, 2010., p. 39.
(2) Lutz, Catherin. The Bases of Empire: The Global Struggle Against U.S. Military Posts. Washington Square, New York: New York University Press, 2009., p. 13.
(3) Ibid., p. 50.
(4) Ibid., p. 134.
(5) Ibid., p. 141.
(6) See Catherine Lutz The Bases of Empire and Chapter on "Geopolitical Conditions of Okinawa in U.S. Military Strategies", p. 244-253.
(7) Hedges, Chris and Laila Al-Arian. Collateral Damage: America's War Against Iraq Civilians. New York, New York: Nation Books, 2008., p. 39.
(8) Keen, Sam. Faces Of The Enemy: Reflections Of The Hostile Imagination. New York, New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1986., p. 12.
(9) Ibid., p. 165.
(10) Ibid., p. 165.
No comments:
Post a Comment