Peace with Justice

Oregon-Idaho Conference of The United Methodist Church

UMOI Homepage

Bold Evangelism

Conference News

UM Online

Newsletter Archives

UMC Conferences

General Conference

Western Jurisdiction Conf.

Strategic Direction

2008 Annual Conference

Reports

Official Minutes

Safe Sanctuary - Trak-1

Connectional Ministries

Nurture

Christian Ed (CEF)

Stewardship

Worship

Outreach

Amigas del Senor

Liberia Partnership

UMVIM

Witness

Peace with Justice

Campus Ministry

Youth Ministries

Districts

Central District

Eastern District

Metropolitan District

Southern District

Western District

WDCES

Finance & Administration

2008 Apport. Reports

Finance & Administration Forms

2008 Church Conf. Forms

Hispanic Ministries

Leadership

Bishop Hoshibata

Bishop's Initiative to Eliminate Hunger

Bishop's Blog

E-lumination

Clergy

BOM

Order of Deacons

E-Vine

CLT

CLT Minutes

United Methodist Women

Peace with Justice

Calendar | Contact

Connectional Ministries : Witness : Peace with Justice

Honorable Disengagement from Iraq

By Rev. Clayton Childers, GBCS
Aug 4, 2008, 06:42

Email this article
Printer friendly page

Honorable disengagement from Iraq

Status-of-forces agreement seems oily
By the Rev. Clayton Childers, Director for Annual Conference Relations, General Board of Church & Society

For months now the United States and the Iraqi governments have been meeting to hash out a status-of-forces agreement concerning the ongoing presence of U.S. military forces on Iraqi soil. This agreement is necessary to protect the sovereignty of Iraq.

The agreement acknowledges that the U.S. military presence in Iraq serves only to support the government of Iraq. In the final analysis, the Iraqis should call the shots, not the United States. Even the Bush administration has acknowledged in the past that if there ever came a time when U.S. forces are no longer welcome they should pack up and leave.

In the final analysis, the Iraqis should call the shots, not the United States.

Well that time has come. It’s time to start packing.

The prime minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki, declared last month, that any new status-of-forces agreement must include a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. forces. In essence, he said it is time for the United States to start closing up shop, folding up tents, shipping home the armored Humvees and bidding farewell.

If the Bush administration were smart, it would embrace the invitation to leave as an opportunity to depart with honor: mission accomplished.

The Bush administration has always opposed such a deadline, though, contending it would benefit militant groups. So, the administration put the prime minister’s message about ticking clock departures through the spin cycle: Al-Maliki came out not saying what he had clearly said.

According to the spin, it may have sounded like al-Maliki was saying he wanted a timetable for departure, but it is all in the translation. He didn’t really mean it.

It may have sounded like al-Maliki was saying he wanted a timetable for departure, but it is all in the translation.

The day after the administration's spin, Iraq's national security adviser Mouwaffak al-Rubaie said his country would not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for withdrawal of U.S. forces. In essence, he said: “Yes, it would be fine now for the Americans to start going home. We'll take it from here.”

The Bush administration responded to al-Rubaie’s statement by declaring that it’s time to shut down any discussion about status-of-forces agreements.

U.S. and Iraqi negotiators abandoned efforts to reach a long-term agreement governing the status of U.S. troops in Iraq, effectively leaving talks about the U.S. military presence in Iraq to the next administration.

In place of the formal status-of-forces agreement, the two governments are at work on a bridge document, more limited in both time and scope, that would allow U.S. military operations to continue beyond the expiration of a U.N. mandate at the end of this year.

The failure of months of negotiations undercuts the Bush administration's plans to leave in place a formal military architecture in Iraq that could last for years.

If the United States were smart, it would accept this Iraqi government’s gift of honorable disengagement and celebrate. But that is not likely. As Winston Churchill once noted, “You can trust Americans to do the right thing, but only after they’ve exhausted all the other possibilities.”

You can trust Americans to do the right thing, but only after they’ve exhausted all the other possibilities.

Can we not read between the lines and see that there might very well be more to the Bush administration’s Iraqi agenda than meets the eye? The administration has stressed that the war in Iraq is about protecting the United States and Israel from weapons of mass destruction, removing brutal dictator Saddam Hussein, destroying Al-Quaida cells — which technically were not there until after we invaded — and establishing democracy through free elections.

Well, the United States has apparently accomplished all these things. What’s left? Oil! If the United States pulls out now it won’t have a say about what happens to all that oil under Iraq. When push comes to shove, could it be that the invasion of Iraq had something to do with oil after all?

Maybe that’s why the United States has built so many permanent-looking bases throughout the country. Maybe that’s why the United States spent a billion dollars to build the largest U.S. embassy in the world on 104 acres in downtown Baghdad. Maybe that’s why the suggestion of a 100-year presence of U.S. troops in Iraq has been presented as a real a possibility. Maybe the unspoken agenda was oil all along.

But how long will the U.S. public buy this? The Iraqis are ready for us to leave. Polls show that most Americans agree with the Iraqi leaders.

How long can we keep this up? The U.S. presence there is costing $10.5 billion every month, $343 million every day, $14 million dollars every hour. While at home, the U.S. economy is struggling. Bridges in the United States are falling down, houses are being foreclosed at heretofore unheard of rates, and many other critical needs must be addressed.

Worst of all, U.S. military personnel are still being killed, two or three a week, despite the downturn in violence.

Maybe, just maybe, the United States will finally take its blinders off. Maybe, just maybe, the United States government or its citizens will realize the Iraqis are right. It’s time to declare victory and come home.

At the end of the day that’s what democracies do.

Date: 8/1/2008 12:00:00 AM
Copyright 2008

Top of Page

Download Adobe Reader.

Links

Peace with Justice
Latest Headlines

Peace with Justice Grant Application & Guidelines

United Methodists call for stewardship over greed

Refocusing our National Priorities

Voters Guide

Honorable Disengagement from Iraq

Not On Our Watch/Book and Study Companion to take action for ending genocide in Darfur

Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki

War and Peace #165(c)

GBSC awards $51,000 in Peace with Justice grants

Delegates call for world peace, end to war in Iraq

79 Religious Groups Oppose Nuclear Bomb Plant

Peace with Justice Sunday-May 18

Help put a human face on Peace with Justice Sunday

Nuclear Weapons Statement by Howard Morland

Online game delivers virtual nets, saves real lives

Anniversary of a moral disater

Our Lament and Hope for Peace

2008 Legislative Priorities

"We're all 'Minor' Prophets"

Living Faith, Seeking Justice: Resourcing Local Churches for Justice Ministry