part of the issue revolves around the concept of an occupier. under international law the answer is clear, the occupying power has responsibility for provide security in the occupied territory.
although we often hear the american presence in iraq referred to as an occupation, the bush administration has never really been completely happy with the label. ever since the beginning they've made several efforts to distance the u.s. from the label of "occupier" and the responsibility that entails. in june 2004, they rushed ahead to hold a "handover of sovereignty ceremony." nothing really changed after the ceremony, but at the time the administration claimed it marked the end of the occupation of the country. and yet, u.s. forces didn't leave. they didn't even reduce in any significant way. and the u.s. forces that remained continue to raid homes, operate road blocks, and otherwise engage in the kind of police powers that only an occupying power has in a foreign country. as time passed the significance of the sovereignty handover ceremony has faded as it became apparent that it didn't represent much more than a media event.
the various elections were the next few efforts used by the administration to emphasize iraqi independence and sovereignty. and yet during each election, u.s. forces virtually locked down the whole country in the name of security. i'm not saying the measures were not necessary, but the mere fact that u.s. forces were doing it ran counter to the message that iraq was not occupied.
the bottom line is that until u.s. troops leave, they effectively control the country. that means security is the coalition forces’ (i.e. primarily the united states’) responsibility. having "handover of sovereignty" ceremonies, national elections, etc. doesn't absolve the u.s. of its responsibilities as an occupying force. the only way to get out of that one is to pullout the troops and to end the occupation.
which is why the current responsibility-shifting to the iraqis is really rather pathetic. yesterday nytimes columnist john tierney led the charge that has since been echoed by bush administration officials. tierney claimed that the real problem with iraq is that iraqis really don't want stability and unity
J. D. Thurman, the major general who is the senior commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, has figured out the obstacle to America's dream for Iraq.if the matter weren't so serious, tierney's analysis would be laughably bad. iraqis are dying at a tremendous rate every single day. they have a lot more at stake in this then tierney does, even more than the average u.s. soldier does. the soldier, at least, gets to leave iraq when the tour of duty is over. tierney’s column reminds me of the worst sort of victorian era orientalism. tierney portrays the iraqis as ignorant savages who don't know what is really in their own best interest and require education from the enlightened west.
"Part of our problem is that we want this more than they do," General Thurman told The Times's Michael Gordon, alluding to American efforts to unify Iraqis. We need to get people to stop worrying about self and start worrying about Iraq.
not to miss out on a chance to shift responsibility away from itself, the bush administration is jumping feet first onto the tierney bandwagon. today bush warned iraqis that "patience has limits." that is, they better get their act together and stop the violence. you know, that violence that the u.s.' far superior forces have been completely unable to stop.
bush's remarks are also contrary to his long-standing rhetoric that the u.s. forces will stay in iraq until the iraqis are able to handle their own security. ought implies can. if the iraqis really can control security in the country, then doesn't that mean it's time for our soldiers to come home? and if they can't control the security situation yet, then where does he get off giving these kind of ultimatums to the iraqi government?
