Surge architect: There is no U.S. occupation in Iraq

Fri, 03/14/2008 - 9:58am

In an enlightening debate this week on PBS's NewsHour, AEI scholar and "surge" advocate Frederick Kagan made a curious assertion about the U.S. troop presence in Iraq:

The American presence in Iraq is not an occupation. We are there by power of the U.N. Security Council.

I say "curious" for two reasons. One, Kagan may be right in legal terms, but let's not kid ourselves here. It's an occupation, and that's how most Iraqis see it. Two, since when do AEI scholars cite the "power of the U.N. Security Council" so readily?

As for the rest of the debate, I would urge Passport readers to check it out. Both Kagan and his interlocutor, journalist Nir Rosen, have some good points to make about the success of the surge. I would note that Gen. David Petraeus is a lot more cautious than Kagan is about the political progress the Iraqi government is making. Kagan thinks there's been "remarkable political progress." But  Petraeus told the Washington Post Thursday, "[N]o one [in the U.S. or Iraqi government]... feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation."

(Hat tip: Steve Clemons)

Blake Hounshell | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

Kagan may be right in legal

by jellicle on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 10:09am

Kagan may be right in legal terms? How's that again?

As a refresher for FP, UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (November 2002) criticizes Iraq and demands compliance with the WMD inspection program. That's about it. Russia, China, France and Syria, all on the Security Council, were all vehemently opposed to giving the United States any authorization to go to war with Iraq, and so the resolution gives no such authorization. Bush stated in November 2002 that he would seek a second Security Council resolution authorizing war if war was necessary.

In January-February-March 2003, the U.S. and Britain did affirmatively seek a second resolution authorizing war. They twisted arms, they cajoled, they threatened. The US drew up the resolution they wanted. Colin Powell's infamous presentation in February 2003 (with vials of white powder) was for the purpose of convincing the Security Council to vote yes on this second resolution actually authorizing war. In March 2003, Bush was asked about this at a press conference:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html

"Q Thank you, Mr. President. As you said, the Security Council faces a vote next week on a resolution implicitly authorizing an attack on Iraq. Will you call for a vote on that resolution, even if you aren't sure you have the vote?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, I don't think -- it basically says that he's in defiance of 1441. That's what the resolution says. And it's hard to believe anybody is saying he isn't in defiance of 1441, because 1441 said he must disarm. And, yes, we'll call for a vote.

Q No matter what?

THE PRESIDENT: No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam."

Those same four countries weren't having it, weren't convinced, and ultimately, despite his promise to do so in the press conference just above, Bush did not put forth his resolution for an up-or-down vote. Because it would have lost (resolutions needing to be unanimous).

The United States was never authorized by the Security Council to go to war with Iraq. Full stop.

Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General, 2004: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

I understand this is only a blog and not subjected to the same level of vetting as the magazine, however, blog posters need to know their history. Frederick Kagan is simply lying flat-out. He is a liar. He's fibbing. Fabricating. Prevaricating. And if you're going to talk about subjects like this, you need to know your history well enough to know when you're being lied to, and you need to have enough self-respect to call a lie a lie.

I believe Kagan is referring to...

by Blake Hounshell on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 11:25am

... the multiple UN Security Council resolutions since then that time that have legitimized the U.S. presence in Iraq. I would note however, that this resolution, UNSCR 1546, does use the word "occupation."

His argument was a non-sequitir

by Haggai on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 1:05pm

Whether the UNSC officially approves of it or not has nothing to do with whether a foreign military presence constitutes "occupation" or not.

as a legal matter, kagan is probably right

by jharonfe on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 1:07pm

From mid-April 2003 to 28 June 2004, Iraq was de jure under belligerent occupation by the US and the UK acting "as occupying powers under unified command". Although a good case can be made that the occupation de facto continued after 28 June 2004, the transfer of full governing authority and responsibility to the Iraqi Interim Government on that date was considered by the UN Security Council to mark, at the very least, formal end of the occupation. As Mr. Hounshell observes, UNSC 1546 notes, at paragraph 2, "Welcomes that, also by 30 June 2004, the occupation will end and the Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist, and that Iraq will reassert its full sovereignty". See also the Press Statement by the Security Council President on Handover of Sovereignty to Iraq, delivered on 28 June 2004, UN Doc. SC/8136; and R (Al-Jeddah) v. Secretary of State for Defense, [2006] 3 WLR 954 at 961, para. 16.