Maine Owl

Back in March 2003, in an important dawn-of-war article, Thomas Powers writing in the New York Times Sunday Week in Review explained that what would follow the then-coming invasion of Iraq would be an occupation of Iraq with U.S. President George W. Bush in charge.

Amazingly, it is now possible to dredge up these archive stories in full, and I happened to have saved the link to that article:

Pre-Occupation; The Man Who Would Be President of Iraq
By THOMAS POWERS - Published: March 16, 2003

IF war comes -- the phrase used so often in recent months -- the fighting may be quick or prolonged, but few experts doubt that the huge American force now concentrating in the Middle East will prevail in the end. When the regime finally changes in Baghdad, and Saddam Hussein is dead, in custody or in exile, 70 years of Iraqi independence will end, political authority will pass into the hands of George W. Bush and Western rule will be planted on Arab soil for the first time since the French and British left the region in the middle of the last century.

What then happens to Iraq's 23 million people, its oil and its relations with its neighbors will remain the personal responsibility of Mr. Bush and his successors in the White House until one of them chooses to surrender it.

This dramatic expansion of President Bush's job description, little discussed during the long months of argument at the United Nations over Iraqi weapons, will be the immediate practical result of an American military victory and the occupation of Iraq by the Army's Central Command.

As the military commander in chief, the president will have virtually unlimited power to change and rebuild Iraq as he sees fit, far greater power, for example, than Queen Victoria's over India in the 19th century.

Wow, explains exactly the U.S. power grab and suggests the responsibilities that entails in a nutshell.

Let's fast forward to Wednesday, just short of five years since the Powers article. President Bush is asserting what appears to be permanent U.S. sovereignty over Iraq! It's buried on page A18. And the Washington Post story focuses on the hurt feelings in Congress that they're being told they ceded Bush these powers long ago. But I think it also reveals the truth of how the sovereign thinks about its imperial subjects, if you read deep enough:

No Need for Lawmakers' Approval of Iraq Pact, U.S. Reasserts
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 6, 2008; Page A18

The Bush administration yesterday advanced a new argument for why it does not require congressional approval to strike a long-term security agreement with Iraq, stating that Congress had already endorsed such an initiative through its 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein.

The 2002 measure, along with the congressional resolution passed one week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks authorizing military action "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States," permits indefinite combat operations in Iraq, according to a statement by the State Department's Bureau of Legislative Affairs.

The statement came in response to lawmakers' demands that the administration submit to Congress for approval any agreement with Iraq. U.S. officials are traveling to Baghdad this week with drafts of two documents -- a status-of-forces agreement and a separate "strategic framework" -- that they expect to sign with the Iraqi government by the end of July. It is to go into effect when the current U.N. mandate expires Dec. 31.

...

According to yesterday's statement, the administration's interpretation of the 2002 resolution is that "Congress expressly authorized the use of force to 'defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.' "

In a letter to [Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-N.Y.)], Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey T. Bergner said that authority exists with or without a U.N. mandate. In addition to the resolutions, he wrote, "Congress has repeatedly provided funding for the Iraq war." Democrats have failed in several attempts to curtail funding for the Iraq war. [emphasis added]

Say what? The administration without further approval of Congress wants to sign an agreement with leaders of a country, who are supposed to be our allies, that we're at war with that country just to say we're staying at war?

It's insane. Any decent Iraqi should be outraged that quislings should sell out their country in this manner.

Also, consider that Congress did hand Bush these sweeping authorizations to use force, so it is hard to sympathize with arguments that members who voted in such resolutions are not getting just what they should have expected from Bush & Cheney.

The thing that's lost, however, is Bush's responsibilities for the welfare of the Iraqi people. That is a tragedy in many acts, perhaps on a world-history scale of displacement and, yes, genocide, with 500,000 to 1 million excess deaths, and 4 or 5 million refugees.