Is Iraq a sovereign nation or not?

Hot on the heels of the recent poll of Iraqis indicating that most Iraqis want us out of Iraq, and not just that, but that they believe they will be safer when we’re gone, comes a blog report from Amygdala on an appearance by Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) on Meet the Press which highlights a fundamental flaw in our Middle East policy.

There has been a lot of rhetoric about how we want to build a free and stable democratic Iraq to serve as a beacon of, well, freedom, stability and democracy in the Middle East.  But it seems to me as if a fundamental premise underlying that entire framework is that Iraq is a sovereign nation.  Right?

Enter Senator Mike DeWine.

But you know, on reflection, this is their country. There’s a lot of things going wrong. You blame someone who is there. Still does not change that we’re not in Iraq primarily for the Iraqis. We’re in Iraq for us. We’re—have to do what we have to do, and it goes back to what the three generals—three military leaders said. It would be a total disaster for us to leave. It is in our self-interest, the interest to protect American families, that we are in Iraq. That’s why we’re there.

I’m not here to blame DeWine for his statement, I think it’s completely honest, if a bit contradictory (I’m not completely clear why he can’t see that).  How can it be their country, really, if we’re going to do what we have to do (and, presumably, stay until we’ve done it) if the Iraqis want us out and we aren’t even considering leaving?

It exposes the seedy underbelly of our President’s rhetoric about wanting democracy and freedom in Iraq–that we’re happy if these are consequences of our presence, but that if the President and Congress was satisfied that we had won the War on Terror in Iraq, and that our leaving wasn’t going to increase the risk of danger to the United States, our “commitment” to Iraqi freedom and democracy would give way to political expedience faster than a partisan pollster can stuff a ballot box.

We’ve done it before, so let’s not fault people passingly familiar with history for knowing that.

It also shows the reality of our paternalistic government–we do not respect Iraq as a sovereign nation.  If we did, how would we handle the knowledge that in a democratic state that most of the people did not want our presence?  Why, we would leave.  That’s what respect is about.  But other nations know that when it comes to the United States the only respect you’re going to get from us (when you’re standing in the way of U.S. interests) is when we’re looking at the wrong end of a nuclear weapon.

Is it any wonder that states whose governments have been targeted by the U.S. are trying by hook or crook to drum up a nuclear arsenal?

And exactly how is it that other Middle Eastern nations and citizens thereof are going to look up to Iraq and its model government if it’s clear they’re just the U.S.’ bitch?  Even assuming we “win” in Iraq, if that means we have to stay there for five or ten years after we know the Iraqis want us out, what will we have accomplished?  We’ll have proven that we really view Iraq as little more than an extended colony, obligated to follow our policy interests even if their people have determined that such interests are not Iraq’s interests.

Acknowledging that we’re in it for us and not them does clarify the victory condition problem.  If maybe we’re there for us, maybe we’re there for them is this kind of mish-mash of justifications, how do you set victory conditions?  It’s a mess.  But if you narrow it down to “We’re here for us” then you can at least be definitive about what we want to accomplish.  At least at that point you can say that regardless what the Iraqis believe that we’re staying anyway, dammit, until we’ve got what we came for.  Do I expect that to occur?  I do not.  I fully expect Senator DeWine’s comment to be flushed down the political toilet of history, never to be heard from again, leaving us right back where we were before.

Two final points: 

1.  Before you counter this by saying “We are there for the Iraqis,” consider the can of worms you’re opening up from a foreign policy perspective by justifying deposing a dictator or authoritarian government because of how the people are treated.  There’s a lot of people in this world, and a lot of crappy governments, and the line is going to get real long, real quick, if you’re going to put your flag in the ground over that principle.

2.  Iraqis want us out.  Iraqis believe they would be safer with us out.  We are now at a place where their sovereignty is at odds with our interest.  Don’t come on here claiming that somehow our interests are aligned.  To do so you better have a damn good reason to throw the poll results out.  Maybe such a reason exists.  Maybe there is a flaw in the methodology I am unaware of, or an unreported bias by the organization.  Maybe you hate polls, I don’t know.  But don’t come on here and claim we’ve got aligned interests unless you can back it up a substantive claim that a majority of Iraqis want us there.