The Spin of Sovereignty

We're told this week that the sovereignty of iraq has been transfered back to the iraqi people. What if it were true! But sadly, every nation lost some measure of their sovereignty two years ago when the Bush Administration trumped up its flimsy evidence of an iraqi weapons of mass destruction program and began arming for its second war.

It is now American foreign policy to wonder aloud which nation should host the next American war against terror. It's kind of like the Olympics, but for loser countries that don't have American investments. Afghanistan in 2001, iraq in 2003, with a competition between Iran and Libya to host 2005. Cue the uplifting music and roll out the new graphic design. Pretty soon we'll be tag-teaming the Wars on Terror and the Olympics for greater return on investment. How about North Korea's Pyongyang for the 2009 War on Terror and South Korea's Seoul for the 2008 Olympics? The reporter pool could be shared and administrative overhead slashed. The handover of power could be combined with the handover of the torch, which the terrorists could use to set off a series of bombs. Seriously, the Bush Administration has told the world that it will trump up rationales for war against any country that crosses its path. What does sovereignty mean in this kind of world?

The situation in iraq is hardly prosperous, stable, free or sovereign. We have a government whose electors, candidates and constitutional process was designed by the American occupation force under L. Paul Bremen III. "Our leaders are just toys" said an iraqi storekeeper quoted by the New York Times and I have to agree. The new iraqi prime minister, Iyad Allawi, worked closed with the Central Intelligence Agency in the 1990s. All of the new leadership will be either former top aids to Saddam Hussein or former CIA agents. How much power really has changed this past week? How much has even really changed these past two years? One of the last laws passed by Bremer on his way out the door was to grant American contractors immunity from iraqi laws. That's the act of an occupier, not a friendly ally about to transfer sovereignty.

Last July President Bush taunted iraqi insurgents: "There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring them on." Insurgents still bomb and kidnap foreign contractors. A year later American tanks and Humvees still rumble through iraqi streets. The much ballyhooed transfer of power is yet more Bush Administration spin, aimed at the American people, whose message is that the war is over. But nothing changed this week. American troops remain in iraq, unable really to either leave or stay: either option brings more instability, chaos and terror to the country. I've campaigned against Saddam Hussein for over a decade--my opposition dates to the era when he was a U.S. ally and could do no wrong. But even I have to wonder if we're leaving the country worse off than we found it.