comments_image -

Two Caliphates in Baghdad: U.S. Paying High Cost for Ignoring History's Lessons

America followed the fate of the French in Vietnam and the Russians in Afghanistan; now, it's following British imperial rule of Iraq in 1930.
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

The Brits made an imperial mess of Iraq back in 1930, now it is America's turn!

We followed the fate of the French in Vietnam; are trying hard to imitate the Russians in Afghanistan; and now, our emulation-in-progress is of our beloved European cousins. Who would ever think that it was an American philosopher (by way of Spain), George Santayana, who stated just a century ago, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." And American government leaders always seem to be the forgetful ones, although as it happens in all these cases, it is the American people who are condemned to pay the consequences in both blood and dollars.

We are not even speaking of millennia ago, or even centuries; only the recent past. How can we be so forgetful as to how the British bamboozled a timid Iraqi Parliament, where the true nationalists lacked a voiced, into signing an agreement in 1930 that would have Iraq in turmoil with coup after coup until Saddam Hussein came to power in 1979? And we all know what has happened since then. Seventy-eight years later here we are, cramming down their throats an illegal "strategic alliance" that is similar in both content and tone to that Great Britain "imposed" on Iraq almost eight decades ago.

And I say illegal for both Iraq and the United States. For Iraq, it's a non-valid agreement since it will be contracted under duress from an occupier's demands, whatever excuses are brought forward to obtain legitimacy. For the US, it's also an invalid pact unless it is subsequently ratified by the US Senate. We are told that the wording in this strategic alliance has been crafted so as to "avoid such ratification." Nonsense, if the provisions in such agreement or alliance have the underlying intent of a treaty, it is a treaty; and as a treaty, constitutionally, it must be ratified.

True that the American Executive Branch has been operating for decades outside of the Constitution in taking the nation to war (undeclared war) and entering into treaties (or agreements) thanks to a spineless Senate and the de-facto consent of Americans, who really care little, or are brainwashed by the White House, unless the conflict turns sour.

It is remarkable that the two senators who will be contending for the highest office in the land next November, McCain and Obama, aren't exercising their duty as senators, making this issue one of national concern, one to be handled with both transparency and care. Malfeasance in office by members of the Senate made Bush's invasion of Iraq fait accompli; once again, it will be malfeasance if the senate remains blind, deaf and mute to this travesty.

It is interesting that Barack Obama claims that "had he been a member of the Senate back in 2002, he would have voted against granting Bush permission to invade Iraq." Well, he is a member of the Senate now... but one hears little noise from him on this important issue, one that could keep the United States involved in the Middle East until the area runs out of oil or Israelis, whichever comes last . Time for deeds, Sen. Obama!

Iraq does not appear to be willing to have the UN mandate extended beyond its current expiration date, at the end of this year; and the US really doesn't care whether its effective control is through a mandate granted by the UN or an agreement with a government which may not be of unity or consensus. The US must have a tacit control of Iraq's oil while maintaining a solid military presence in that part of the world to counter not just Iran and its nuclear aspirations, but any "problems" that may emerge anywhere in Southwest Asia.

Although the hush-hush negotiations on the Strategic Framework Agreement and the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) had reached an impasse by the second week in June -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki referring the deadlock on what his government felt were critical sovereignty issues -- both Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari and Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad (US) appear confident that an agreement will soon be reached since both countries are committed to a joint security pact. Yes, we will have two caliphates out of Baghdad; one ran locally by Iraqis, the other ran by Americans as part of the Empire.

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: iraq, neocolonialism
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
Fox Blames Obama for Manufactured "Gas Crisis," Even After Prices Fall

By Shauna Theel | Media Matters

 
 
Why Did the Associated Press Make an Anti-Choice 'Correction'?

By Robin Marty | RH Reality Check

 
 
Minimum Wage Not Enough for a 2-Bedroom Unit in Any State (Unless You Work Way More Than a 40-Hr Week)

By Staff | AlterNet

 
 
Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board Will Investigate ALEC for Lobbying Violations

By Kristen Gwynne | AlterNet

 
 
Obama and Targeted Assassinations: Had Secret Kill List, Calls Killing American-Born Cleric "Easy Decision"

By Sarah Seltzer | AlterNet

 
 
Romney Excuse for Birther Trump Endorsement: I'm Running for Office and I Wanna Win!

By Adele M. Stan | AlterNet

 
 
Women's Center In New Orleans Destroyed By Arson, Third Incident in the South

By Sarah Seltzer | AlterNet

 
 
US Productivity Up, Wages Stagnant

By Sarah Seltzer | AlterNet

 
 
Scott Walker's Recall Strategy: Avoid Anyone Who Isn't A Walker Voter Already

By Laura Clawson | Daily Kos

 
 
Radioactive Bluefin Tuna Contaminated by Fukishima Reaches US Shores

By Agence France-Presse

 
 
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 1 ]