Most rational people are aware sovereignty was turned over to the Iraqi interim government on 30, June 2004. Granted, there was an valid argument that could have been made as to the effectiveness of that interim government but the fact remains at that point Iraq was a sovereign State under a duly elected government.
Since that time as we all know an election was held for the final formation of the government. Just last week – and almost overshadowed by the al-Zarqawi death – the Iraqi parliament approved the final new ministers of defence, the interior and national security, ending a three-week stalemate among sectarian and ethnic parties.
There are holdouts of course that still believe Iraq is under an “evil” occupation by the Multi-National forces led by the U.S. Government and Military. A quick cruise through the websites of Code Pink, International A.N.S.W.E.R, Amnesty International and several other anti-war sites all feature the phrase “Iraqi occupation” and use it as a rallying point to foster dissent and assist recruiting those of similar political persuasion.
I also suspect many that reside in the U.S. Senate and House of representatives also believe Iraq is under “occupation.” They may not have expressed it using that precise term but at times their rhetoric seems to indicate where their true sympathies lay.
However in the best traditions of the late and unlamented TV show Who Wants to be a Millionaire the United Nations offers “the final answer” on the Iraqi “occupation.” (emphasis mine)
The following statement to the press was delivered today by Security Council president Ellen Margrethe Løj ( Denmark):
As required under resolution 1637, members of the Security Council discussed on 15 June the mandate of the Multinational Force (MNF) in Iraq, and certain arrangements for the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) and the International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB).
The members of the Security Council received a briefing from Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari and an update on MNF activities from United States Ambassador John Bolton. The members of the Council further noted Foreign Minister Zebari’s letter of 9 June 2006 (document S/2006/377). As requested by Iraq’s constitutionally elected Government in that letter, the members of the Council agreed upon the continuation of the mandate of the MNF and of the arrangements for the DFI and IAMB, in accordance with resolution 1637.
The members of the Security Council welcomed the recent appointment of Iraqi Ministers of Defence, Interior and National Security Affairs, completing the formation of Iraq’s constitutionally elected Government. They also welcomed the progress made in recruiting, training and equipping Iraqi security forces and their increasing responsibilities on the ground. Members of the Security Council continued to look forward to the day Iraqi forces assume full responsibility for the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq, thus allowing the completion of the MNF mandate.
They also reiterated the importance for all forces promoting the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq to act in accordance with international law, including obligations under international humanitarian law.
No occupation; Who knew!?
As I stated at the beginning, rational people have known for two years. It’s the Barking Moonbats and political hacks looking to further their political careers that have clung to that very leaky lifeboat.
And despite official word the U.S. and it’s Multi-National partners in Iraq have been invited to stay at the request of the constitutionally elected Government and approved by the United Nations, I harbor no illusions the phrase “Iraqi occupation” will fade away.
But when I do read or see it I’ll very quickly give them the U.N.’s “final answer.”