Read Senior Editor Susan J. Douglas's 8 reasons to make a tax-deductible donation to In These Times.
ZoomZoom InZoom OutPrintDiscuss
Views > June 1, 2007 > Web Only

With an Empire to Build, Who Needs an Iraqi Parliament?

The Bush administration has brought democracy to Iraq, only to ignore it

By Allen McDuffee

Tags   

Over the last few weeks, Iraq coverage in the U.S. media has focused on funding. On May 1, Bush vetoed the Iraq spending supplemental because it would necessitate an “artificial withdrawal.” Then last week, Democrats, while simultaneously declaring victory, caved in to Bush’s aggression and provided more war-funding than he requested. Congress’ lone requirement was mandating benchmarks for the Iraqi government, however, the funds will be available regardless of Iraqi governmental performance. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi continued the anti-war rhetoric, saying “I think the president’s policy is going to unravel now,” but the words seem empty.

Away from the media’s gaze toward partisan politics, however, a much more significant story was developing in Baghdad that essentially went unreported. On May 8, a majority of Iraq’s parliament signed a petition demanding a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops.

But the United States isn’t listening to that message, much less heeding it. Press briefings at the State Department and the White House haven’t touched on the topic. In lockstep with the Bush administration, the U.S. media ignored the story until some reporting in the alternative media such as AlterNet and criticism on blogs finally compelled them to report it. Five days after the fact, the New York Times buried the story in the middle of its front section and focused on secondary points of the petition—specifically, the readiness of Iraqi security forces—that cast the parliament more in line with the Bush administration than the Democratic Party.

Nearly as swiftly as the majority petition was signed, and in fear that U.S. support in Congress was waning, an opposing Iraqi delegation of U.S.-friendly senior officials and ministers was dispatched to lobby some of the most influential foreign policy members of Congress for continued military presence. Not surprisingly, the U.S. media reported this immediately.

The parliamentary petition is the first step in making the initiative binding. Under Iraqi law, the speaker of the parliament must present a binding resolution for a parliamentary vote when a majority of lawmakers pass a petition. Up to this point, petitions on withdrawal have fallen just short of the 138 votes required to pass. The most recent attempt occurred last fall when the parliament was able to capture only 131 signatures. (The U.S. media was quick to report that failure.) The push over the threshold this time indicates that the parliament is catching up with Iraqi citizens who, according to multiple public opinion polls, overwhelmingly want the United States out of Iraq. A poll from the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes found 71 percent of Iraqis want the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

The Bush administration ignoring the petition calls attention yet again to that it is arrogant enough to leave Iraqis out of the decision-making of their own country. And by deeming irrelevant the elected officials who put the petition in motion, the administration contradicts its only remaining argument for invading Iraq in the first place—to bring democracy to the Middle East, starting with Iraq.

More tellingly, disregarding the petition—and constantly threatening to veto any legislation that mandates withdrawal—highlights the Bush administration’s intent to stay. Withdrawal is a question not worth contemplating as far as the administration is concerned and isn’t on the table for earnest discussion. This explains why the administration sidestepped the Iraqi parliament’s petition and why Bush absolutely refused to accept any legislative oversight of the occupation’s progress.

Consider the evidence. More than a dozen extensive military bases are being built. Meanwhile, the soon-to-be-completed U.S. embassy in Baghdad, consisting of 27 buildings on more than 100 acres, has more employees than all of the other U.S. embassies around the world combined. Up to this point, according to the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. has spent more than $300 billion in military operations in Iraq. This year alone, the United States is spending $10 billion each month and conservative estimates indicate that over the next 10 years more than an additional $500 billion will be spent.

These are not the costs and plans for an overnight stay. Or even a five-year program abroad. These are the price tags of empire building.

Allen McDuffee is a Chicago-based researcher and writer focusing primarily on Middle East politics and American foreign policy.

More information about Allen McDuffee
Tags   

  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    If the Shrub will not listen to his own countrymen, why would anybody expect him to listen to a bunch of foreigners?
    His arrogance is coupled with an ego that goes beyond any rational explanation.
    He cannot lead his own party. Now that they can’t ride his coattails, only a handful will listen to him. Sadly, there are enough standing behind him on the Iraq situation to prevent any withdrawal motions from passing.
    As to impeachment, which he has richly deserved for the past two years, they can’t vote to impeach, because that would force them to admit that they had been following a clueless leader all this time. And image trumps reality in Washington in these times.
    Karl Rove tells Shrub to say that the Democrat’s wanting a withdrawal is not supporting the troops.
    The Democrat’s wring their hands, rather than ask what does the scandal at Walter Reed say about supporting the troops. What does Shrubs’ refusal to allow a 3.5% pay hike for the military say about supporting the troops.
    What does allowing the ‘war’ to continue despite their private admissions that things weren’t working, all the while telling the troops and the public that all was well say about supporting the troops?
    Pelosi said all the right things when she took the position of Speaker. Then promptly began to ignore her own words and promises about lobbyist’s by having a $10,000/plate fund raiser hosted by the lobbyist’s.
    Until such things as lobbyist sponsered fund raiser’s are outlawed, with real penalties, rather than censure motions, we will continue to have the best government that money can buy. A government on both sides of the aisle that puts constituent’s behind those who will spend the big bucks on them.
    Where in the Constitution does it say that lobbyist’s must be taken into account? Yet we see that happening daily, despite Congress critters’ public statement’s that such will not be permitted.

    Posted by farmer on Jun 5, 2007 at 6:54 AM

  • register a new account »Posting Security

    To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.
     

    Retreive lost password »

Join Here
Member Login

Forgot password?

Also by Allen McDuffee

Donate now
and get a
free, signed copy
of David Sirota's New York Times bestseller The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington

Popular Discussions