Should we have a Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi

[alfredo]

government? I learned a few weeks ago that we don't. If Iraq is now a sovereign nation, should bush have signed a SOFA?

What is the law covering this?

[derrald]

1. Well, first things first

What is a SOFA? What would be the pros and cons toward our military?

[alfredo]

2. It is an argreement between to sovereign nations allowing one

to keep forces on their land.

We handed over sovereignty to them in June, so it make sense that we should have signed a SOFA.

we do have an agreement that Iraq would not hold American soldiers responsible for crimes committed, but I am not sure that that could be considered a SOFA.

[skygazer]

3. In this way

we keep forces all over the world. In many of those places, we have no real need for security, per se - to a certain extent, this is a modern form of imperialism. It gives us a sphere of influence in an area as well as immunity for any of our personnel who break laws there.

I read a very interesting book recently that dealt with American imperialism - unfortunately, I don't remember the author or the darn title now. Shit.

At any rate, he pointed out how our stationing of troops all over the world has no real military purpose in most of those areas. It is a way of keeping our presence felt and influencing the country in our favor. It affects their economy and customs and is similar to the methods used by the Romans, who first conquered then occupied areas all over the world. We skip the conquering part.

[sangh0]

4. NO! Under no conditions should we want a SOFA with Iraq.

SOFA are "Status of Forces Agreement". In concept, they are contracts between nations governing the stationing of one's nations military forces in the other nation's territory. It covers things ranging from the rent for the bases, what sorts of activities the military can engage in, etc. In reality, it has been used to

a) gain legal immunity for our troops who break the laws of the host nation

b) prevent the host government from having any say of what we do in their country

c) prevent host nations from evicting our military from their soil, which sometimes happens when governments in the host nation change

Basically, SOFA's has been used to extend our ability to coerce foreign governments to do our bidding. They have allowed our military to be used to shore up dictators, and suppress dissent, and they are a direct contradiction to the idea that people all over the world are entitled to govern themselves. A SOFA with Iraq would garauntee our presence in Iraq for man, many years.

[alfredo]

6. Here is what my congressman wrote concerning the SOFA

What I am getting at is, are we breaking international law by not having a SOFA? Is bush breaking US law by not having one.

It doesn't matter if we have one because we will be driven out anyway. It is just a matter of time.

[sangh0]

7. No, we do not need a SOFA

Just as you and I do not need to draw up a contract before I come and visit you, the US does not need a SOFA in order to be in Iraq, so long as the Iraqi govt does not object.

[alfredo]

8. Now I guess we need to determine if the govt there is legitimate.

[sangh0]

9. Now *that's* a more pressing legal matter

.

[carpetbagger]

5. The Iraqi government was hand-picked by us.

Any agreement they sign could easily be ripped to shreads by a future government, and we would have absolutely no casus belli or other way of asserting treaty rights.

So it does nothing for us, and nothing good for the interim government. (The one thing it does is to make them look even more like our puppets, if that's possible.)