Tibet is part of China, so I don’t think that analogy holds.
You mildly disagreed with the OP’s premise John…you are obviously a reflexive Bush lover. I did too…so I’m probably lumped in the same boat.
-XT
The US government (not GWB) has considerable influence over the government of Iraq. But to say that “he [Bush] controls Iraq” is factually incorrect. For example, if Bush “controls Iraq” then why don’t they have legislation for distribution of oil revenues? That is, after all, one of his key things he has been pushing. According to you, he should simply be able to issue an edict and get it done. And yet clearly this has not happened.
We’re in GQ here, not GD. We’re looking for factual answers, and you’ve given a factually incorrect answer.
Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state of several countries besides the United Kingdom. And Lyndon LaRouche and David Ickes could tell you stories about her being a despot.
Check your Merriam-Webster.
2 a: to exercise restraining or directing influence over.
Despot was poor choice of words. Control was not. There was nothing “factually incorrect” about it, though I’ll admit there are many more precise ways to describe the nature of the relationship between the US and Iraq.
I’m sorry, John, but my answer was factual.
Just because a government controls a given space doesn’t mean that control can be perfectly executed. The United States also has laws against robbery, murder, and kidnapping, but those things happen.
Furthermore, the President’s control over the various components of the United States and its overseas posessions is limited by the Constitution and the practicalities of politics. To use an example, George W. Bush can’t force the Commonwealth of Kentucky to do certain things; he cannopt force it to, say, change its state flag, or alter the curricula of its public schools. He can exert pressure on them to do that through various means, but he can’t make them, and in many cases if he tried the state would give him the finger.
But it would be silly to say “George Bush has no control over Kentucky” in the same way you’d say he has no control over, say, Italy or Brazil; obviously, Bush is the head honcho in Kentucky, and does in fact exert control over many aspects of its governance as laid out in the Constitution. And you know what? He’s the head honcho in Iraq, too, in the sense that he is the head of state and head of government of the governmental apparatus that ultimately controls those designated territories. It’s not constitutionally enshrined in the case of Iraq, but it’s a practical reality as of November 26, 2007.
What limits his ability to do things is the fact that he’s not a despot, which is the second, and critical, point. His powers are limited constitutionally, and also limited politically. If he was a despot, there wouldn’t be all this talk about an election, after all.
That’s kind of the point. Tibet is part of China, because China says so, not because Tibet says so. ie - foreign rule.
Nope. Just because it’s incorrect to say that Bush has no control over Iraq doesn’t mean it’s correct to say he does have control over Iraq. Using the word “control”, by itself and especially the way the OP has phrased it*, is wrong. Period. Bush doesn’t control the government of Iraq. He has lots of influence, yes, but that is not “control”.
*From the OP: “Like the locals have no power over anything and GWB can do whatever he feels like - the Iraqis can’t stop him nor can the American people.”
Are you saying that Iraq is not a sovereign state? Or are you pointing out that the power of the Iraqi government depends a great deal on US policies?
Because Iraq is most certainly sovereign. It meets every textbook definition of sovereign I’ve ever seen: from holding territory and population under the rubric of a government that is widely recognized as legitimate; to the more practical definition of possessing institutions that decide upon the legitimate use of force within its borders. The same cannot be said of, say, Tibet or of Hungary circa 1956.
It is also true that the weakness of the Iraqi government makes it rely on the US much, much more than your average government would. Characterizing the nature of this relationship is a matter of debate: some may call it influence, others may call it control. But a claim that it is settled fact that the US “controls Iraq” is simply nonsense: the word “control” can be debated till the cows come home. (We can certainly say that Japan “controlled” Manchuguo during WW2, but did the Soviets “control” North Vietnam in the 1960s? How does the US relationship with Iraq compare to the latter example?) I believe none of that discussion is appropriate for GQ.
I think the only real factual question – whether a country has controlled another country at any time since the end of the British Empire – has been answered.
I’ve checked several dictionaries, and it’s still wrong.
Bush “controls” the administrative branch of the US government (including the military). That’s it. He has lots and lots of indirect influence on what happens in Iraq, but very little directly. Even then, all he can really threaten to do is to withdraw the US forces (or redirect them). And the Iraqis know he’s not going to do that. Congress controls the $$ that go there, btw.
It would be accurate to say that Bush (as shorthand for the US government) controlled Iraq during the rule of the Provisional Authority. That ended in 2004.
If you must split hairs, then split the one between between de facto and de jure.
Everyone has agreed that Iraq has a nominally sovereign government. It is much more debatable whether that government has any real power over the entirety of its territory, however.
And the real point is that the government operates de facto if not de jure within a set of constraints imposed on it by the U.S. government. Compare the Iraqi government to that of Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan for the freedom of action it has.
This is not an issue of whether the U.S. should be there, how it got there, or what course it should take in the future. This is mere political reality. The U.S. government currently controls the Iraqi government. That government can work within the strictures set down by the U.S., can attempt to independently handle only internal non-“security” issues, and can continue to struggle toward a future dictated by the current U.S. government. If a Democratic administration is elected, then there will be a different set of constraints put on Iraq starting in 2009. That is control in any real world situation.
Or you could simply answer my previous question. If the Iraqi government were to order all U.S. troops out tomorrow, what would happen?
Out of curiosity and from a purely factual standpoint, how do you think US ‘control’ of Iraq stacks up to, say, British control of India during the Empire period? Do you think the US has the same level of depth and breadth of control that the British had? How about the French ‘control’ of Indochina vs US ‘control’ of Iraq? Spanish ‘control’ over the New World colonies vs US ‘control’ in Iraq?
If you feel the US does in fact have the same level of ‘control’, what do you base that on? If not…what does that say, if anything, about US ‘control’?
Well, you are talking about nations that have stronger central governments than the teetering Iraq atm…so I’m not sure if it’s a fair comparison. How about comparing the level of US control in Iraq to, say, the satellite nations of the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War? Would you say the US has more or less control than the Soviets did during the Cold War period?
I don’t think anyone here is disputing that the US has a huge amount of influence over Iraq…I think that is obvious to everyone. However, I don’t believe that the US exerts nearly the same level of control as, say, the Europeans did during the colonial period over their various economic empires…or the Soviets did over the Warsaw Pact nations. If we DID have that level of control then Iraqi oil would be being shipped to the US directly, without our having to bother with all that buying and selling stuff. Perhaps we’d cut our British cousins in on some of the action too…but we’d be getting the lions share of the oil if we really controlled things at the level suggested by the OP.
-XT
We’ve already established that the U.S. is not led by a despot who has absolute control over Iraq. Therefore, the relative amount of control the U.S. has compared to other situations is not a factor. We are only looking at this individual case of control.
The only question that needs to be asked is: can the Iraqi government do anything of any major import that would be against the expressed interests of the U.S. government?
Today, that answer is no. Commentators on all sides of the issue in both the U.S. and Iraq have said as much repeatedly (some to applaud and some to deplore) and the Iraqi government publicly chafes at this.
You can call it mere influence, but that is false wordplay. If I cannot do anything that you won’t allow me to do, you have more than mere influence over me. You have control.
And I notice that you again refuse to answer my direct question. I will try modifying it. Is there anything that the Iraqi government can get away with doing that is directly contrary to expressed U.S. interests? (The U.S. not being able to forthrightly steal their oil is obviously not an example, so please don’t bring that up again. This happens not because of the Iraqi government but because of world public opinion.) If there is no answer to this question - and I believe there is not - then control is the operative word and no other will do.
I would really like to honestly answer your question because it would be an interesting one to answer, but it’s just too darned late in the day, and it would involve a substantial amount of research, and the comparisons would be subject to a thousand mitigating factors. If you’ve got some stuff to contribute by all means, but I just don’t see myself having the time to do it anytime before Christmas break. You’ve asked an enormous question that deserves a substantial answer. Sorry.
My claim that the U.S. exerts control over Iraq is based on the simple fact that, contrary to Ravenman’s claim, Iraq does not possess a legal monopoly over the use of force within its own borders. The United States, in fact, possesses that power, and it would be absurd to think it does so only at the permission of the Iraqi government. Ask yourself honestly; if Iraq tomorrow told all U.S. troops to leave, would they? If not, let’s not pretend the U.S. doesn’t control Iraq. They do, and they do it, to a large extent, with force.
I think you better look in the mirror if you think my two-line post pointing out that Bush is not a despot and is not in direct control of Iraq constitutes an example of ideological blindness.
Bush does not control Iraq. The U.S. does not control Iraq. Have you been reading the papers lately? The ones that describe how disappointed Bush is by the fact that the Iraqi leadership isn’t listening to him? Hasn’t the opposition to the war been pointing out at length that the situation in Iraq is anything but under control?
If Bush controlled Iraq, he would have simply called the various political figures to a meeting and said, “Get it done - or else. Cross me, and I’ll find someone else to do my bidding, and you’ll be hanging next to Saddam.” That’s the way despots control countries.
The big threat the U.S. can lay on Iraq is to simply pack up and go home. There is zero chance that the U.S. will simply overthrow the government and reinstall one more to their liking. Certainly not without mass revolts across the country and rebellion by the Shiites and the Iraqi military.
You could say the same about any other small country that is economically or militarily locked to the United States. How about Israel? Does George Bush ‘control’ Israel? America has tremendous influence over Israeli policy, because America’s aid is very much needed. But that doesn’t mean the Israeli government is not sovereign, and it certainly doesn’t mean that George Bush controls Israel.
No need to be…I was genuinely interested in your insights on it. I can definitely understand how it’s a pretty big question…and the tired thingy as well.
I’m not sure I agree that this is what makes for despotic control or not. I think from a historic perspective (history, XT style) that it would be if the US used it’s military against the Iraqi GOVERNMENT a la the Soviets or Brits that the US would have despotic type control. Fighting WITH the elected Iraqi government, even if we are doing the majority of the donkey work, I think speaks to a great deal of US influence…but not necessarily to despotic control.
The Iraqi government is over a barrel based on events, no doubt. And the US certainly has a high level of influence over what the Iraq government can and can’t do…but by no means is this despotic control (IMHO, though I realize this is GQ). If the US DID have that level of influence we would certainly toss out the existing government…and probably disband the military again and try to re-roll hoping for better luck…and at a guess we’d install a figure head who would have a much more centralized and tight nit government as this would be in our short term better interests (especially someone who could command the loyalty of the army and who wouldn’t flinch at doing the nasty, dirty stuff that would get us out of Iraq soon and looking reasonably good…that we had ‘won’). And we would certainly be exploiting Iraq’s oil resources in a much more systematic way for our own short term good.
I believe that if the Iraqi government DID ask the US to leave tomorrow we would start preparations to bolt, yes. In fact, I think that we would leap at the chance to declare victory and use the excuse to get the hell out of dodge.
The crux though is that the full Iraqi government wouldn’t do that, though isolated ministers within that government periodically do rumble about it. So…to a certain degree Iraq is tied to the US. It’s just not (again, IMHO) despotic type control. It’s actually a rather tenuous and fragile control that we exert on Iraq comparatively speaking.
What about the converse? I believe that the US would leave if asked by the full Iraqi government. Oh, we might not leave tomorrow…but I think we would be out of there by early spring if the Iraqi government really wanted us gone. So…what about if that were the case? Should we not pretend that the US has more control over Iraq than it really does? And that this control is pretty weak if we look at the history of puppet states?
-XT
How about not mixing tofu with T-bones?
The Spanish colonies, like current French overseas posessions, were “provinces”, “dominions”… they were not sovereign states. They had wars of independence in order to become sovereign states.
A puppet country is one which is de jure independent and sovereign, but not de facto. Like, say, the whole Eastern Bloc during the Cold War. The Spanish colonies were not independent and sovereign de jure.
How about not mixing tofu burgers with T-bones?
Colonies (Spanish or otherwise) are “provinces”, “dominions”… they are not sovereign states. Those Spanish overseas posessions which wished to be independant either had wars of independence or asked nicely (and we said “oh, ok”). During many of the time they were colonies, the present-day notion of “we have our own culture, therefore we oughta be a separate sovereign state” didn’t even exist.
A puppet country is one which is de jure independent and sovereign, but not de facto. Like, say, the whole Eastern Bloc during the Cold War. The Spanish colonies were not independant and sovereign de jure.
I concur!
Look up the Iraq benchmarks and see how many were unfulfilled due to problems on the Iraqi side. Specifically, the US wants a new oil law, a new debaathification policy, an end to militias, an end to political involvement in security operations, and various other policies, but the Iraqi government isn’t falling in line. In fact, the parliament took a recess in August over US objections. Except for the recess thing, those matters are at the heart of Bush’s current Iraq strategy, and Iraqi lawmakers are apparently not aware they’re supposed to be doing what Bush wants.
Its hard to say because it isn’t going to happen. But going along the theory that there are no dumb questions, I think Bush would declare victory and get out. I even have a cite:
What do you think will happen, and can you provide any cites for your opinion?