Isaacs and Sharp, and Fadel

I intended to write this post early this afternoon, but was pulled into a work shift, and now I'm actually glad to be posting after class instead because the discussion and the clips transformed the way I was reading the articles.

Initially, when I was reading, I didn't fully see how the accord legitimated US presence, because I was so caught up in being surprised by the concessions made by the US. In reading, I was indignant that Isaacs and Sharp wrote "The UN mandate expires at the end of the year and - without a replacement agreement - American forces will lack the legal authority to stay in Iraq," (1) because I didn't believe the UN mandate should have been seen as giving the US legal authority - but I accepted that it did, in terms of international treaties/laws. Furthermore in reading the articles, I didn't really see how there could be loopholes, and was focused more on the downfalls that Isaacs and Sharp mentioned, in terms of the executive overextension and possible unconstitutionality of broadening a SOFA to include so many terms...but I hadn't noticed the possible politicization of the part that noted, "Iraqi's already have taken to calling the SOFA the "withdrawal agreement." Based on the text, this appears to be an accurate description." (2) After watching the video in class I realized there was a real political reason behind NOT calling it a SOFA - that the Iraqi's don't even need a SOFA, nor do they really need a withdrawal agreement. The Iraqi's weren't referring to the SOFA as a SOFA because they recognized that it was overstepping the bounds of a what a SOFA should include, and that having a SOFA with an occupying country was actually giving legitimacy to the country's being there in the first place.

Now, after the class, I'm realizing that our initial surprise at how much the US was giving up should maybe be replaced with surprise at how accepting we were of the US requiring a SOFA to begin with. We unconsciously or consciously assume that US presence abroad is expected, natural, and often acceptable. I know that before taking this class I was against the Iraq "War," but I never thought about US military bases around the world, or how so many of them came about because we invaded or intervened in sovereign countries without permission - and then requested permission to stay. As Karin said, that arrogance is astounding! Maybe it's because we're all more familiar with Iraq, but it seems to be a good place to end this course, because I don't think I would have seen the connections between militarization, military basing, the MIC, and war and occupation, if it weren't for the fact that they ALL converge in massive proportions when we consider Iraq. September 11 happened when I was in 9th grade, and for the past 8 years those of us who grew up with Bush as President have lived in a world where we almost take for granted our military presence abroad, specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan. But taking it for granted is exactly what allows for such incursions in the first place. The fact that our class' gut reaction was to be surprised by the concessions the US made, rather than to be surprised at the audacity of the US to make a formal SOFA with a country it invaded and occupied is so baffling now that I've realized the true weight of Iraq agreeing to this treaty - to the legitimacy that both the UN mandate and this accord have given the US and "coalition" forces. Right as I was starting to think I saw the interconnections, and was understanding the different issues we were looking at throughout the course, I am thrown off by this sudden realization that all along I was still unwittingly participating in a broad sensibility that the ubiquitous US military presence was almost inevitable and even reasonable in the context of international relations. Now I'm suddenly faced with feeling that international relations are essentially flawed because the US presence is taken for granted, and because the US has gotten away with doing the same thing time and time again, across the globe, until most of us unquestioningly assume that the US bases are everywhere, without wondering how they got to be there in the first place. I'm really disturbed by this, and it leaves me reconsidering so much of what we've looked at in this class.