I’m hoping there is a factual answer to this question.
During the presidential campaign here, as everyone knows, a big issue was how long the U.S. forces should remain in Iraq–as long as necessary or only until mid-2010? The side proposing withdrawal by mid-2010 won the election, but one thing that was never brought up in this debate was that the government of Iraq has a say in the matter. Our U.N. mandate is going to expire, and there is currently a raging debate in the Iraqi parliament over the Prime Minister’s plan for a security pact with the U.S., which would have us out of Iraq’s cities by next summer and out of the whole country by the end of 2011.
At the moment Maliki’s timeline appears consistent with President-elect Obama’s plans. But suppose Maliki has to move the deadline up to appease the Sadrists and other right-wingers–or imagine McCain had been elected and didn’t want to set any timetable at all. If Iraq refused to agree to let us leave troops in as long as our leaders wanted, and the U.N. refused to extend its mandate, would we be forced to leave?
In other words, is the decision really in the hands of U.S. leaders at all?
Yes and no. The US is big and strong enough that we could stay there as long as we wanted-- assuming the president could convince Congress and the American people that it was necessary to do so. Remember, the old Iraq government, and most of the rest of the world, didn’t want us to invade in 2003, but we did it anyway.
But we’d be on shaky legal ground to stay, unless the UN renewed the mandate we have to be there, which expires at the end of this year.
Well, kind of the point of us being there is to get Iraq to the point where they can get themselves together enough to say, “Get outta here!” If they can expel us then, “Mission accomplished.” eh?
There is no such thing as “international law.” At least not in comparison to domestic law, which has state power to enforce it.
International laws are agreements of convenience and mutual benefit. There may be rules to follow in order to obtain results, and there may be clear penalties for breach of those agreements, but at the end of the day, any nation has the authority to do whatever it wants-- whether that’s ignoring international law (and paying the diplomatic penalties), or using international law as a pretext for action (finding an existing and thus conveniently available U.N. resolution to cover military action, or even generating a whole new one).
If the Iraqis want U.S. forces to leave earlier than the Status of Forces Agreement stipulates, the U.S. can simply ignore them if it (i.e. the Administration) deems it in their best interests. Or conversely, the U.S. could choose to agree to an earlier withdrawal for its own reasons as well. The only consequences the U.S. would pay would be situational consequences-- i.e., the Iraqis may not like us all that much, or the French might find something new to complain about.
No international law? You could say there is no such thing as law unless they catch you and punish you. After all millions of people speed in their cars every day. There are millions of undocumented people living in the USA. So you can say that for all practical purposes there is no law and no one really has any obligation to follow the written laws except where it is to their benefit. It is OK to lie, steal and rape so long as you don’t get caught and made to pay a price. But if you can get away with it then there is no reason to respect any, so-called, “laws”. That is pretty much the attitude of the USA in international affairs.
Guys, I am trying to keep this thread in GQ as long as possible.
Practically speaking, it does make some sense to say that whereas there are national laws there are no international laws. The difference is that internationally, there is no consistent or impartial enforcement of agreements. I think you can say that there is not much in the way of international law without implying that there is no law of any kind.
My point is that any system of laws ultimately relies on the will of the majority of those who choose to abide by it and no system is workable if a significant part of the members choose to flout the laws at their convenience. This is specially true when it is the more powerful who do it. When the powerful believe the laws are only made for others they are undermining the whole concept of the law.
In the case of nations it is even more evident when nations break treaties and declarations they had made. If it is morally OK to break laws and treaties at our convenience then it is hypocritical to condemn others when they do the same. Either the law is binding on all of us or it is not. Whether compliance can be enforced is only secondary. If the law just means it is OK to do whatever you can get away with then we cannot morally criticize Al Qaeda for flying airplanes into buildings. They do it when they can just like we propose to do.