The 150,000 or so U.S. troops in Iraq who live on scores of bases across the country, from little 30-men outposts to sprawling camps often built around old Iraqi army barracks, arises from the fact that this was the only military manner to ensure Iraq's security. To dismantle this system, post-surge, is unrealistic since the country would quickly descend into the maelstrom that characterized the poor military arrangement that was previously in place. Unless Iraq is ready now to completely take over its security, then the U.S. military should remain as it is now.
The second main point is even more troublesome, whether private security companies working for U.S. forces will continue to enjoy immunity from Iraqi law. Herein lies the problem. What Iraqi law? The rule of law came as a result of 1) the U.S. military; and, 2) private security companies. If Iraq is ready to handle the responsibility of the rule of law then indeed private contractors should be subject to Iraqi-American law. With significant terrorist opposition, the U.S. military and private contractors would be operating with a severe handicap that the insurgents are not subject to.
At this point, and despite significant progress, Iraq can not handle its own security and the law has not penetrated deeply enough, not yet anyway.
Ali al-Dabbagh, an Iraqi government spokesman, stated (about the Americans): "They have to be there in the back and . . . in their camps. Whenever we ask them they will be ready to support and help.” So let me get this straight, `don't call us, we'll call you.' That is a policy that is fraught with failure.
The outrageous incidents involving Blackwater, the largest private security company in Iraq, are really regrettable but unless Iraq can secure the country and ensure the rule of law the private contractors should remain.
The U.S. has a status of forces document for more than 80 countries, including Japan, Turkey and Singapore, and these should provide the model with which the Iraqi accord can conform.
Posts
