THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume IX, Issue # 238, December 19, 2007
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
THE EXTENSION OF THE UN MANDATE FOR IRAQ:
IS THE IRAQI PARLIAMENT BEING IGNORED?
By Dr. Michael Rubin
SECURITY & STABILITY IN IRAQ: THE MILITARY PRESENCE OF THE U.S.A. & ITS COALITION ALLIES IN IRAQ -- THE
IRAQI GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST THAT THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL GRANT A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE
UN MANDATE FOR THE UNITED STATES-LED MULTINATIONAL FORCES IN IRAQ -- THE DANGER OF AMERICAN POLITICIANS
SECOND-GUESSING THE ELECTED IRAQI GOVERNMENT ON THIS MATTER -- THE DANGER OF THE U.S. CONGRESS
ATTEMPTING TO MICROMANAGE THE IRAQI POLITICAL PROCESS -- WHAT WILL ULTIMATELY MAKE POSSIBLE A U.S.
MILITARY DRAW DOWN IN IRAQ, WITHOUT JEOPARDIZING IRAQI SECURITY & STABILITY
FULL STORY:
On December 10, 2007, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki sent a letter to the UN Security Council requesting that the
Council extend the mandate of the U.S.-led Multinational Forces for one year, beginning December 31, 2007.
Maliki's actions are perfectly permissible under terms of the Iraqi Constitution. They are also permissible under
precedent: The Security Council's November 28, 2006, extension of the mandate of the Multinational Force's presence in
Iraq until December 31, 2007, was also in response to a request by the Iraqi Prime Minister.
Under Article 58 of the Iraqi Constitution, it is the job of the Iraqi Council of Representatives to ratify international
treaties. This requires a two-thirds margin of support. Then, according to Article 70, the measure goes to the President
to ratify the treaty. Such treaties are considered ratified after 15 days.
None of this is relevant to the case of the Prime Minister's request to extend the Multinational Force's mandate. The
simple fact is that neither Maliki's communiqué nor UN Security Council resolutions any more constitute treaties for Iraq
than they would for the U.S. Congress.
Despite the indisputable fact that this UN Security Council resolution does not constitute a treaty, the Iraqi Council of
Representatives does have recourse if it disagrees with the Prime Minister's actions: A no-confidence vote requires only
a simple majority. Despite grandstanding among some members of the Parliament, especially among parties more
sympathetic to Iran, none have chosen to avail themselves of the constitutional right to a no-confidence vote.
While it is tempting, in the American political context, to second-guess the elected Iraqi government on this matter, there
should be little doubt that doing so undermines the nascent Iraqi democracy and is counterproductive to Iraqi security
and stability. In turn, it will be that security and stability which creates an environment that will ultimately enable a U.S.
draw down.
Indeed, while it is the duty of the U.S. Congress to help make and guide U.S. foreign policy, micromanagement of the
Iraqi political process often backfires. In the case of a Representative or Senator in the U.S. Congress, his first duty is to
his constituency. The same is true in Iraq: An Iraqi politician who weighs the vote of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs
Committee over his own voters will not be an elected politician for long. For Iraqi politicians striving to do the right
thing, the often conflicting messages received from the United States political system sometimes do more harm than
good.
The Iraqi Prime Minister's request to extend the Multinational Force's mandate for a year is one of those rare actions
which serve the interests of the United States, the United Nations, and Iraq.
Whatever the longterm U.S. debate about the merits of the surge, the U.S. military strategy has created space to enable
Iraqi political leaders to address political reform and reconciliation. As the U.S. congressional leaders know, hard-fought
political compromises on even minor issues can take weeks and months. Those involving fundamental constitutional
interpretations and reforms take months, if not years. An attempt to stoke bickering between the Iraqi Council and the
President over the decision to extend the Multinational Forces' mandate will undermine the very reconciliation process
we have worked so hard to protect.
Finally, the extension of the United Nations mandate for Iraq addresses a key problem of legitimacy for that world body
that should not be dismissed. For, while many in the West see the United Nations through the prism of the noble goals
of its founding charter, many Iraqis view the UN through the prism of Oil-for-Food program corruption and former UN
Secretary-General Kofi Annan's warm relations with Saddam Hussein. Restoring UN credibility in Iraq is an important
goal, and the resolution extending the mandate of the Multinational Forces for one year will allow time for political
discussion and greater security force training, and may also allow time for the Disarmament, Demobilization, and
Reintegration of militiamen.
The Iraqi political process is far from perfect. But its best chance for success lies not in second-guessing an elected Iraqi
Prime Minister's request to the United Nations' Security Council, but in respecting his very responsible decision to deny
populist temptations and focus on the tough reforms ahead.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
The Middle East & the Problem of Iraq
Page Two
Page One
The Problem of Rogue States:
Iraq as a Case History
National Strategy for Victory in Iraq
American Foreign Policy -- The Middle East
Middle East -- Arabs, Arab States,
& Their Middle Eastern Neighbors
Islamism & Jihadism -- The Threat of Radical Islam
Page Three
Page Two
Page One
International Politics & World Disorder:
War & Peace in the Real World
Page Two
Page One
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
Counterterrorism & U.S. National Security
U.S. National Security Strategy
Dr. Michael Rubin, a Ph.D. in History (Yale University) and a specialist in Middle Eastern politics, Islamic culture and Islamist
ideology, is Editor of the Middle East Quarterly, a senior lecturer at the Naval Postgraduate School, and a resident
scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public
Policy Research. Dr Rubin is author of Into the Shadows: Radical Vigilantes in Khatami's Iran (Washington Institute
for Near East Policy, 2001) and is co-author, with Dr. Patrick Clawson, of Eternal Iran: Continuity and Chaos (Palgrave
Macmillan, 2005). Dr. Rubin served as political advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad (2003-2004); staff
advisor on Iran and Iraq in the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense (2002-2004); visiting lecturer in the Departments of
History and International Relations at Hebrew University of Jerusalem (2001-2002); visiting lecturer at the Universities of
Sulaymani, Salahuddin, and Duhok in Iraqi Kurdistan (2000-2001); Soref Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East
Policy (1999-2000); and visiting lecturer in the Department of History at Yale University (1999-2000). He has been a fellow at
the Council on Foreign Relations, the Leonard Davis Institute at Hebrew University, and the Carnegie Council on Ethics and
International Affairs.
The foregoing statement by Dr. Rubin was originally presented as testimony before the Subcommittee on International
Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight, Committee on Foreign Affairs, United States House of Representatives,
December 19, 2007, and can be found on the Internet website
maintained by the Middle East Forum, a think tank which seeks to define and
promote American interests in the Middle East, defining U.S. interests to include fighting radical Islam, working for
Palestinian Arab acceptance of the State of Israel, improving the management of U.S. efforts to promote constitutional
democracy in the Middle East, reducing America's energy dependence on the Middle East, more robustly asserting U.S.
interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia, and countering the Iranian threat.
Republished with Permission of the Middle East Forum
Reprinted from the Middle East Forum News
mefnews@meforum.org (MEF NEWS)
December 19, 2007
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume IX, 2007
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity