Whitehouse says it has authority to detain Iranians in Iraq

[Storico]

This is what happens when you play police man in Iraq. According to this latest news, the white house has decided that "Iranians are aiding the insurgency in Iraq and the U.S. has the authority to pursue them because they “put our people at risk." [from the article above].

I find this oddly amusing. That Hadley (NSA to the White House) or Cheney would find it offensive that people living in the middle east would get involved in middle east politics is no surprise to me, since it's an opportunity for them to "crack down" on whoever it is they want to target, but...

What think you?

[Meh_Gerbil]

This is what happens when you play police man in Iraq. According to this latest news, the white house has decided that "Iranians are aiding the insurgency in Iraq and the U.S. has the authority to pursue them because they “put our people at risk." [from the article above].

I find this oddly amusing. That Hadley (NSA to the White House) or Cheney would find it offensive that people living in the middle east would get involved in middle east politics is no surprise to me, since it's an opportunity for them to "crack down" on whoever it is they want to target, but...

What think you?

People who aid the insurgency are terrorists.
The war is against terrorists.
This seems to be a non-issue to me.

Do you have a problem with the arrest and detainment of terrorists?

[James Peter]

That depends. If Iran went and rounded up a bunch of US 'diplomats' who it claimed were actually CIA agents in, say, France and justified it by saying that these agents were working against their national interests would you think that something wrong had occured?

International diplomacy only just about works because people agree to play by mutually agreed rules. The US has chosen to ignore those rules, of course other countries are going to protest and wonder why they should keep them if the US doesn't.

The Iraqi government has the authority to expel these individuals, that is the 'correct and proper' way to handle this sort of situation. If the Iraqi government does not want to do so then the US government has no actual right to interfer... Iraq is a sovereign state now remember? That means it doesn't have to act in line with US interests.

[Storico]

People who aid the insurgency are terrorists.
The war is against terrorists.
This seems to be a non-issue to me.

Do you have a problem with the arrest and detainment of terrorists?

Arresting and detaining terrorists isn't what I have a problem with. The authority the White house gives itself is what I have a problem with.

From the article (http://www.theglobeandmail.com):

"Mr. Hadley asserted that if Iranians in Iraq “are doing things that are putting are people at risk, of course we have the authority to go after them and protect our people.”

Mr. Hadley sidestepped a question about whether U.S. forces would move across the border to pursue Iranians who are helping Iraqi insurgents."

Can't you see that this is opening up another big can of worms? As long as the US White house feels persecuted, they'll feel threatened, they'll feel like "their people" are being attacked -- which, coincidentally, will probably make them think they've got the green light to eventually move into Iran to start arresting and detaining anyone they see fit to there.

The issue I have is with the White House and its NSA appointing themselves the World Police.

I'm not comfortable with the president of the US doing that. Are you?

[Storico]

The Iraqi government has the authority to expel these individuals, that is the 'correct and proper' way to handle this sort of situation. If the Iraqi government does not want to do so then the US government has no actual right to interfer... Iraq is a sovereign state now remember? That means it doesn't have to act in line with US interests.

And this is exactly one of the problems I'm seeing. The current US administration doesn't see Iraq as a sovereign state. It sees it and its government as a puppet, I think. That's the only reason it's still there, calling the shots.

[Hail Mary]

This is what happens when you play police man in Iraq. According to this latest news, the white house has decided that "Iranians are aiding the insurgency in Iraq and the U.S. has the authority to pursue them because they “put our people at risk." [from the article above].

Do you think we have the right to detain North Koreans in South Korea? Do you think we had the right to detain Russians in West Germany? I'm not sure why you even think this is an issue.

[Darth Executor]

Good. I'm still trying to figure out why the nuts in Iran aren't being chased by helicopters as we speak.

[James Peter]

Do you think we have the right to detain North Koreans in South Korea? Do you think we had the right to detain Russians in West Germany? I'm not sure why you even think this is an issue.

But the point is precisely that we do not have the right to do that.

If the South Korean government requests our assistance then we have the right to choose to give it to them. If they do not ask for our help then we have no right to get involved. The authority rests with the 'host nation', it is their soil and their law. We have to respect that.

If the question was 'Do the US military have the authority to conduct operations in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi government?' then the answer would be 'yes'.

If the question is 'Do the US military have the authority to conduct operations in Iraq without the request/approval of the Iraqi government?' then the answer is no.

The White House has no authority in Iraq any more, they can assist the government as requested but that is all. If we weren't happy with that we shouldn't have rushed to give them back their sovereignty...

[Hail Mary]

But the point is precisely that we do not have the right to do that.

JP, are you suggesting that if an Iranian poses a danger to our troops, then we have to request that the Iraqis detain them? If so, that is really a naive point of view.

If an Iranian, or anyone else for that matter, is doing something (anywhere) to endanger our troops, we have the right (indeed the responsibility) to detain them as quickly and effectively as possible.

What if the Iranian is driving a car full of explosives at high speed towards you? Or what if you have intelligence that the Iranians are about to deliver explosives or intelligence to an insurgent group?

Jerry

[Conductor42]

Ok, while I'm no person to be edging for escalating our bad relations with Iran, I hate to say it, but this makes sense.

If the "mission" of the Iraq operation is to establish a stable, semi-free country, then detaining Iranian operatives in Iraq is just common sense. Don't detain them without reason of course, but if they pose a real threat to security they ought to be treated like any other terrorist.


That being said, we need to get the heck out of Iraq.

[Storico]

That being said, we need to get the heck out of Iraq.

Yes.

If the White House didn't insist on US troops still being in Iraq, Iranians wouldn't be threatening them there. The US government has to decide either "yes, Iraq has its own government so we need to pull out now" or "no, Iraq doesn't have its own government so we'll stay and police things there." -- for all practical purposes, the actions of the US government with respect to foreign policy in Iraq have made the choice for them, and it's option two that they're choosing.

If an Iranian, or anyone else for that matter, is doing something (anywhere) to endanger our troops, we have the right (indeed the responsibility) to detain them as quickly and effectively as possible.

What if the Iranian is driving a car full of explosives at high speed towards you? Or what if you have intelligence that the Iranians are about to deliver explosives or intelligence to an insurgent group?

Jerry -- would the Iranians, or anyone else for that matter, be endangering US troops if the US troops weren't there any longer? If someone is hellbent on attacking you, you've got a couple options: fight or flight. What's happening is "fight". And not just fight, but target and attack and go on the offensive. It hasn't worked. It's time for flight. If that car full of explosives is driving towards you en route to attacking someone in the next town over, you don't attack that car. You don't even ask for permission to attack it. You get out of the way. It's not your issue. You don't stand in the middle of the road and jump up and down and yell because there's a car coming at you. All the above's an allegory, but please do consider it. The US government doesn't have business in Iraq any longer, not if Iraq now has its own government and not if it hasn't been asked to stay and fight. It ALSO doesn't have business moving into Iran, which is what it might do next. From Iran, where next?

[Hail Mary]

Jerry -- would the Iranians, or anyone else for that matter, be endangering US troops if the US troops weren't there any longer? If someone is hellbent on attacking you, you've got a couple options: fight or flight. What's happening is "fight". And not just fight, but target and attack and go on the offensive. It hasn't worked. It's time for flight. If that car full of explosives is driving towards you en route to attacking someone in the next town over, you don't attack that car. You don't even ask for permission to attack it. You get out of the way. It's not your issue. You don't stand in the middle of the road and jump up and down and yell because there's a car coming at you. All the above's an allegory, but please do consider it. The US government doesn't have business in Iraq any longer, not if Iraq now has its own government and not if it hasn't been asked to stay and fight. It ALSO doesn't have business moving into Iran, which is what it might do next. From Iran, where next?

It seems your answer to any threat is to run away. If a car full of explosives is driving towards you, troops are not taught to run away (goodness!), they attack it by all means at their disposal. Otherwise you're allowing the car to freely target the most strategic objective it can find.

About the fighting in Iraq, at least it is occuring there and not on the streets of New York. I wish there were no fighting at all, and Iraq had flowery meadows, and rainbow skies and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles.

What do you think would happen if we leave?

[Storico]

It seems your answer to any threat is to run away. If a car full of explosives is driving towards you, troops are not taught to run away (goodness!), they attack it by all means at their disposal. Otherwise you're allowing the car to freely target the most strategic objective it can find.

My answer to "any threat" is not to run away, no. Pacifists believe that violence should be the VERY last option -- not one of your first choices. If Bush wants to move his troops into Iran, and if he wants to stay in Iraq, that's not exactly signaling a desire for the violence to stop, is it? You know the old saying 'it takes two to tango'? In this case, there are more than two, but Bush is making certain that his troops are one of the involved parties.

In your car example, you are not allowing the car to 'freely target the most strategic objective it can find' if you cease to fight. You ARE one of the 'things' the people in the car are targeting, just as they're one of your targets. It's a stalemate.

About the fighting in Iraq, at least it is occuring there and not on the streets of New York.

The distance a problem's away doesn't make it any easier to stomach it. But you bring up a good point. If the fighting WAS taking place on the streets of New York, do you think Bush could get on national television and demand more soldiers, and more time for the fighting, if US citizens could SEE it happening in front of them?

I wish there were no fighting at all, and Iraq had flowery meadows, and rainbow skies and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles.

What you're describing is a heavenish fantasy. There's no need for that, even. It would be ideal, for sure, but I'd settle for the "most democratic nation on earth" refusing to cause another moment of unrest there good enough for the moment.

What do you think would happen if we leave?

They'd keep fighting each other, without the US troops fighting there, too. I daresay they might also get pretty mad at the US invasion in the first place, if Bush pulled his troops and they weren't there to keep Iraq 'subdued', which is what I think the president's afraid of.

As much as people hope and think that imposing a moral, political, military system on a country will work, it won't if the people and the government there don't want it. The people there (US and Iraqi alike) who use violence to make their points are voting "It isn't here and I don't want it here" with bombs and bloodshed.

[Storico]

Here's another question I have, for anyone here: the White House says it has the "authority". Who gave it that authority? Iraqi and Iranian citizens? No. The Iraqi and Iranian governments? No.

It seems to be self imposed.

[Darth Executor]

Pacifists believe that violence should be the VERY last option

Actually pacifists do not believe violence is an option, period.