The ever-perceptive Diana West reveals the sorry truth about SOFA dhimmis:
We've all heard about Couch Potatoes. Get ready for SOFA Dhimmis.What is SOFA? The Status of Forces Agreement the United States has signed with Iraq providing the legal framework for our continued presence in Iraq.
And boy, is that a framework. Here's a sample from this week's column--not exactly holiday fare, but extremely timely given that this humiliating treaty kicks in January 1. In other words, next week.
And what did we agree to? From Article 4, Paragraph 3:
"It is the duty of the United States Forces to respect the laws, customs and traditions of Iraq...."
From the column:
What's up with that? This is the neither the first nor the last time in this agreement that the "laws, customs and traditions" of Iraq are declared "the duty" of Americans in Iraq to "respect." For example, Article 3 also declares: "While conducting military operations ... it is the duty of members of the United States Forces and of the civilian component to respect Iraqi laws, customs, traditions, and conventions" and "it is the duty of the United States to take all necessary measures for this purpose."
Has such a "duty" ever been written into a U.S. treaty with another country? Is it even constitutional? I doubt it. After all, the "duty" of United States Forces anywhere is to the U.S. Constitution alone, not to the laws of another country. Given that Iraq's constitution above all enshrines Sharia (Islamic law), this would also seem to mean that it is now "the duty" of U.S. troops and other Americans in Iraq to "respect" Sharia as well.
What a disaster, what a quagmire, what a waste of life and treasure.
Avoid Christians when it comes to wars, they're too stupid and full of idealism to look at things pragmatically.
Ian, as for Christians and idealism, it is your comment that illustrates a utopian (and naive) view of the world. Our actions in Iraq have cost about 4000+ American lives--hardly the catastrophe of unparalleled proportions that you seem to bemoan. To expect anything LESS costly is utopian to the extreme. As for quagmire, our military has all but eliminated terrorist organizations from the country. That's progress and success. As for treasure, what investment is too great to secure the safety of American lives? You'll never eradicate Islam; but when it becomes a threat to people of good will, it must be resisted. Pick your place. It will be engaged, or we will all be Muslims at the point of a sword.
Here are some Iraqi traditions: cousin marriage, honor killing, persecution of religious minorities, hijabbing of women, Sharia Law, genocides... nothing that should be respected, adhered to, or viewed kindly.
Respect cannot be demanded, or considered to be a 'duty'.
Respect can only be earned.
Beyond the obvious portions of the SOFA agreement already addressed, this particular agreement further ties the hands of American soldiers deployed to Iraq. For instance, soldiers will now require a search warrant prior to entering a house. Take a wild guess at who issues such warrants...
It is sad to see such constraints put on our troops already under constant scrutiny.
Tim Daniels
Here is what Iraq cost us…
(1) Prevented us from understanding the true Islam, because we are too busy trying to appease said Muslims in Iraq
(2) The GOP lost Congress
(3) Obama got elected
(4) Cost us a boat load of cash that could have been spent better, either by supporting non-muslim states fighting Islam, or by developing energy independence.
(5) Took our eye off the main Islamic Jihadist state on earth…Saudi Arabia.
I am sure others can name more…
You state…
“You'll never eradicate Islam; but when it becomes a threat to people of good will, it must be resisted. Pick your place. It will be engaged, or we will all be Muslims at the point of a sword.”
Yes, you are right. I would prefer to stop supporting the Saudi Arabians, and Muslims in general. I prefer to wall them off in their own hell hole of their own creation. Stop them from immigrating into the west…and the problem is solved. It worked for hundreds of years, and it is only people like you that think it is cool to dump billions on a people who will never help us, and yet people like you let them into the west. Why are we fighting in Iraq, if we can’t stop them from goose stepping in Paris, Berlin, or even New York City at ground zero….
Fighting in Iraq won’t prevent this….and this is the real danger.
Wasn't Diana West and her crowd in the right wing media the ones pushing for Iraq war in the first place, then telling us how darn proud we should be of Bush and our boys for freeing those noble Iraqis? Besides, what she is griping about is just boilerplate, she is making a mountain out of a molehill.
"You'll never eradicate Islam; but when it becomes a threat to people of good will, it must be resisted. Pick your place. It will be engaged, or we will all be Muslims at the point of a sword."Posted Tim Daniels
Overall agree, but if you mean (by "islam not being able to be eradicated") the followers of said "faith", O.K.
But if you mean driving islam itself into dust, that is a battle we have yet to fight. It IS a threat, and resistance to it will not hold it off forever.
It is a bully, and needs to be treated as such, and stealthy quick, targeted responces will make islam reconsider it's actions.
This agreement is obscene-admit failure,bring the troops home,If you can respect sharia it's a Psychiatrist you need.
Mister Ghost
You are correct to point out that cousin marriage and honor killing are Iraqi traditions.
But I was in Baghdad in the eighties and I assure you no self-respecting Baghdadi woman wore anything resembling Hijab. There was a bar on every corner. The Iraqis loved their beer so much visitors joked that the only time Saddam will face a revolt was if he stopped the flow of cheap beer and Arak.
Sharia was not even heard of. The penal Code and the constitution were thoroughly secular. Religious minorities like Christians and satan worshippers were protected by Law and custom.
The irony of the inavsion is that it helped introduced Shi'ite Sharia, Hijab and the massacring of religious minorties.
Wars tend to produce unexpected consequences and this one certainly did.
Even more firghtening is that if this phrase is not qualified to a specific situation, it could end up having broad implications and an expanding scope. Elements of treaties can, do and historicaly have had effect far beyond their intended application.
Greatcomet
Not sure about your characterisation of Obama election as calamity(I thought America was a Democracy?)but I certainly agree with you on the diversion of attention from the real source of all Islamist evil: Saudi Arabia.
I wish others shared your clear vision on this. Everything else is a diversion. We should've given the Saudi kings an ultimatum: Stop spreading Wahabbist anti-semitist cancer or the B52s will pay a visit. Instead we removed one of the few genuinely secular and anti-Islamist thugs in the region. And as everybody knows you need thugs like him in existential wars like this one.
What a disaster, what a quagmire, what a waste of life and treasure.
Posted by: Ian at December 23, 2008 6:11 PM
Americans can thank their corrupt and timid POTUS/commander-in-chief for first, lying about WMDS and then, 'staying the course'. But what is interesting is that few noticed that Saddam was wahhabbi's (Al-Sabahs and Al-Sauds) worst nightmare. Dhimmi POTUS took care of Saudi emeny by manufacturing evidence of terror, which turned out to be blatent lies. So what if American tax-dollars, blood and lives are lost? After all, the same Americans made him the POTUS twice! Surely he has that much right to play with tax-dollars and ummm some young American lives.
Also notable is that Osama is nowhere in POTUS plans, after declaring Osama 'wanted, dead-or-alive'.
In the mean time, Americans care more for their patrty (Democratic / Republican) than for America, allowing POTUS escape facing this: http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/
Hi Gorgi,
Yes Iraqi women were among the most secular and liberated in the Middle East in the second half of the 20th century, and they even wore mini skirts in Baghdad in the 1970s. But the the Hijab/covering was part of Iraq's tradition in earlier times... and of course, it has returned in full force with the Islamist government in charge and the Shari-imbued Constitution, which secular women in Iraq (and elsewhere)protested about... and few listened.
Hopefully one tradition the Iraqis still keep hidden away is the ritual killing and skinning of of a cat by the groom on his honeymoon night. That tradition died out fortunately, but it's discussed in Sana al Khayyat's book, a must read, Honour and Shame: Women in Modern Iraq.
Ah, the Islamic burden is a very heavy one for all mankind. What to do about it? Seems there are two strategies that are put forth here at JW on a regular basis. Either make the effort to wall off the Islamic world from the rest of us or engage in a divide and conquer strategy by which the West, led by America, sides with a portion of the Muslim world against yet other Muslims and Muslim states. Neither option should be thought of as foolproof or easy or devoid of drawbacks, but regardless of one's preference it seems most all who post here (except trolls) can agree on two things: 1) ban further Muslim immigration to the West {and concomitantly expel all Muslim immigrant troublemakers already in Western countries); 2) Islam is wretched.