One of the hallmarks of the Cold War was that whenever the USSR invaded another country, they claimed that they were “invited” by that country’s government to enter and keep the peace. When the Warsaw pact nations invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968, the USSR declared that the 500,000 troops were invited into the country in order to “preserve socialism.” On December 24, 1979 the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, again claiming that the Prime Minister Amin had invited them in to preserve his legitimate government. On December 27, Amin was shot by Soviet forces.
Today at his Press Conference, President Bush decided to use this Cold War rationale for the U.S. staying in Iraq. When asked, in part about what advice he would give Obama when he visits Iraq, Bush replied:

PRESIDENT BUSH: … I would ask him to listen carefully to Ryan Crocker and General Petraeus. It’s — you know, there’s a temptation to let the politics at home get in the way with — you know, with the considered judgment of the commanders. That’s why I’ve strongly rejected an artificial timetable of withdrawal. It’s kind of like an arbitrary thing; you know, that “We will decide in the halls of Congress how to conduct our affairs in Iraq based upon, you know, polls and politics, and we’re going to impose this on people,” as opposed to listening to our commanders and our diplomats, and listening to the Iraqis, for that matter. You know, the Iraqis have, you know, have invited us to be there. But they share a goal with us, which is to get our combat troops out as conditions permit. Matter of fact, that’s what we’re doing. Return on success has been the strategy of this administration. And our troops are coming home, but based upon success.

And so I would ask whoever goes there, whatever elected official goes there, to listen carefully to what is taking place, and understand that the best way to go forward is to, you know, listen to the parties who are actually on the ground. [Emphasis added]

There are, of course, so many absurdities contained within these statements that it is difficult to begin to parse each one. Let’s start with “…the Iraqis have… invited us to be there.” I somehow remember history rather differently. Last I recall, the United States and Great Britain, with a few other add-ons, invaded Iraq with well over 100,000 troops and met resistance from an Iraqi army, no matter how ineffective it turned out to be. To claim that the United States troops were invited in is a rewriting of history that Stalin would be proud of.
Now my guess is that Bush would claim that he is talking about the current Iraqi government — but even then the use of the word “invited” is rather bizarre. When the Maliki government was given the reins of power — however limited that power may be — it was from the structure of the Iraqi Provisional Authority which was controlled by Americans. The U.S. military is still, by far, the prominent military force in Iraq and funds for running and reconstructing Iraq are coming in at the billions courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer (and a debt financed by China). To be invited is to say that the inviter actually had a role in the decision. But by having over 130,000 troops in Iraq already, and by focusing on a policy in which this Administration is ignoring pleas by both the general population and the Maliki government itself to begin the process of leaving, the use of the the concept of being invited is beyond a stretch.

Then to claim that their goal is to get U.S. combat troops out “as conditions permit” and then to go on to say that that was being accomplished already, is to twist the facts so that they are unrecognizable.  Some troop brigades did return home to pre-surge levels, but that is as much due to the fact that the troop level was unsustainable if the military wanted to continue its other functions.  The Administration has noted the decrease in violence in Iraq — but this has not been coupled with any real troop withdrawal. Our troops have not come home based on success — they have come home based on military priorities.

The final piece of Bush’s response is also part of this theater of the absurd. To tell Obama to “listen to the parties on the ground” is a clear case of “do what I say, not what I do.”  The first four years in Iraq were lost in part due to the arrogance of the Bush Administration.  Anyone who has read some of the comprehensive books about those years in Iraq, whether The Assassin’s Gate or Fiasco, or if you viewed the great documentary No End in Sight, you know that the Bush Administration assiduously ignored those on the ground, whether real Iraqis or experts on various aspects of Iraq.  It is true that in the past year some of this problem has been reversed, but it has occurred very late and only in part. If Barack Obama were to listen to the parties on the ground, he could ask the Maliki government when they believe that U.S. troops should be withdrawn, and the answer most likely will be, within two years.

The Bush Administration has the technical problem that the U.N. resolution authorizing the U.S. to keep troops in Iraq expires at the end of this year.  The Bush Administration wants to sign an agreement with the Maliki government allowing them to stay without a deadline.  The Maliki government wants the agreement to last only two years and have a goal of combat troop withdrawal.  The Bush Administration isn’t too keen on this idea.  But if they just use Bush’s and the Soviet’s definition of being invited, then such an agreement really isn’t necessary — now is it?

WHAT'S NEXT?

Subscribe via RSS or Email  ::     ::  Leave a comment

Bookmark to: