Technically, WMDs was only one of a number of casus belli stated officially by the US prior to the war, which included Iraq's non-compliance with the terms of the 1991 ceasefire, its continued hampering of UNMOVIC weapons inspection teams, its repression of its civilian population, its attempted assassination of a former US president, its continued firing on US aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone and its harbouring of international terrorists. I don't believe the US and UK should have launched that war in the first place and I personally thought the rationale was a little shaky, but the historical record does show that it wasn't only about WMDs.
The legal basis for the continued US presence is well-established and widely known, so I'm surprised you feel confident enough to dare anybody to explain it to you. Subsequent to the invasion, the presence of US and other coalition forces in Iraq was legitimised by, in turn, UNSC Resolution 1483 (2003), 1546 (2004), 1637 (2005) and 1723 (2006), IIRC. The last action taken by the UNSC with regards to multinational forces in Iraq was to extend the mandate authorising their presence till December 2008. Thereafter, the continued presence of US forces in Iraq has been legally authorised by the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, which calls for US forces to leave the country by December 31, 2011. Whatever the moral case for a continued US presence in Iraq may be, the legal basis is sound.
Something else that's worth noting is that the Wikileaks video dates from 2007, during the height of combat operations surrounding the surge. At the time those sorts of engagements were a daily occurrence. This is no longer the case; these days the remaining US forces in Iraq are involved in relatively few direct combat operations and the overall level of violence in the country has dropped to a level where a slow US withdrawal is now possible without causing a security vacuum. From a US perspective Iraq is now a solved problem and the war is just about over. I must give credit to General Petraeus and his sane and unorthodox counter-insurgency strategy for that, for what it's worth.
So the stuff shown in the Wikileaks footage seldom happens in Iraq anymore. I would suggest that your time is better spent not impotently demanding that US forces leave now based on your reaction to a three year old video, but rather applying pressure on your representatives to ensure the planned withdrawal from Iraq happens on time and that US combat operations in that country end as scheduled on 31 August. I see no reason why it won't though, and in my opinion Afghanistan is a far more pressing concern on which to focus at the moment.
It was the allegations of WMDs gave the impetus for action. Most wars can't be started by frustrating fly-over issues.
The legal basis for the continued US presence is well-established and widely known, so I'm surprised you feel confident enough to dare anybody to explain it to you.
You're confused. None of these authorized the occupation of Iraq. Each of these was adopoted after the invasion took place as safeguards on the occupation. None of these makes the occupation in any way a legal act. It has never been sanctioned by the Security Council; there are no, and have never been, UN troops in Iraq.
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan himself directly called the invasion "illegal". His word.
The illegal basis for the US invasion is well-established and widely known, so I'm surprised you feel confident enough to talk as if you know otherwise.
>Someone, anyone, tell me why the U.S. is still there and under what legal basis. Anyone. I dare you.
I quite clearly explained 'why the US is still there and under what legal basis'. Despite what you think, those resolutions did in fact make first the occupation and then the continued non-sovereign presence legal and represented the UNSC's explicit sanction for the coalition's presence in Iraq. Between 2003 and 2008 US and other coalition forces in Iraq operated under a UNSC mandate (read up on MNF I), so it's irrelevant that there were no blue hats in the country.
Whether the original invasion was illegal or not, Kofi Annan's word does not make it officially so. Like all UN Secretary-Generals, Annan was just an administrator whose opinion carried no legal weight. All binding declarations in terms of international law can only be made within the UN's participatory bodies, like the Security Council, or by the International Court of Justice.
I'm not willing to get into an argument about the legality of the initial invasion because that's not the point you raised in your original post and it's not relevant to the discussion being had about the legal status of US forces in the country right now. The current presence, as I pointed out, is without any shadow of a doubt entirely legal and has been since UNSC 1483. Times have changed, the issues are different and rehashing the arguments of 2003 won't get us anywhere.
I have never heard it parsed that way, Maktab. Interesting.
So you're admitting that the invasion was illegal under international law, but that the continued occupation is legal. How does that work, exactly? You can illegally break into a house, but legally not have to leave?
It's my impression that while UNSCR 1483 legitimized the governing aspect of US/UK forces, it was essentially a "you broke it, now fix it" resolution that didn't offer any specific language that makes the occupation legal.
rehashing the arguments of 2003
The people of Iraq are rehashing those arguments every day their country is occupied illegally. Iraq, at current oil prices, would be one of the richest countries in the world. They'll never see any of that. Those people in the van (in the Wikileaks video) who were killed and mangled, including the kids, are rehashing 2003. There's no statute of limitations on the suffering there; there's no reason we should forget about it if they can't.
The legality of the initial invasion is an open question, without any clearly-defined and universally-accepted answer. Without an unambiguous resolution by the UNSC or ruling by the ICJ, a debate on that topic would fill many pages and might still be no closer to a definitive answer. I definitely don't think it's possible to state outright that it was either legal or illegal.
In any case it's not relevant to the question of whether the current status of US forces in Iraq is legal. That was determined by UNSCR 1483 in conjunction with UNSCR 1511 (sorry, I forgot to mention 1511 and 1790, chalk it up to imperfect memory and a lack of time to research all this again), with the latter resolution explicitly authorising the presence of the Multi-National Force in Iraq as a mandate under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. This mandate was renewed annually until 31 December 2008, when it was replaced by the US-Iraqi SOFA, a treaty between the two countries which established a new baseline legal framework under which US forces are legally permitted to remain in the country.
So there is no occupation in Iraq, let alone an illegal one. If you continue to believe that US forces are occupying Iraq illegally your conclusions and understanding of the situation are going to be flawed and useless. It goes without saying though that accepting the legal basis for the US presence there is not the same thing as condoning it. Though I feel I should point out that I'm not trying to create a justification for the war here, I'm just trying to clarify some of the facts around the conflict. That US troops are in Iraq legally is a fact, it has no morality of its own. It should be enough to disagree with the US's presence without having to wrongly claim that it's illegal.
But for what it's worth, it actually is possible to illegally break into a house and have the legal right to resist eviction, with a number of countries having so-called 'squatters' rights' legislation that protects the rights of people to remain on a property, though usually only for a defined period of time and under certain conditions, even if they occupied it unlawfully in the first place.
As for your last bit, it's an emotional argument which still has no bearing on the specific point you raised earlier. I happen to think Iraq is better off right now than it was either under Saddam's regime or at the height of the war, with their economy improving at an impressive rate, but I'm not sure the bloodshed they went through to get here was worth it.
One last time: while the UN Security Council resolutions from UNSCR 1483 on, that you list, do not ipso facto make the occupation legal. There is not specific language declaring it to be legal, and absent that language, you cannot imply it to exist.
(By the way, as I understand it, squatters rights only are possible when you don't break the law to enter.)
I also think that Iraq is better off now, but that's an obtuse point. From the mid-1980s to September 2003, the inflation adjusted price of a barrel of crude oil on NYMEX was generally under $25/barrel. Now oil hovers over $80 and will certainly only go up. Iraq is floating on the last ocean -- the last untapped large reserves. And how many people died for the US to take control of that? Iraq's infrastructure is better now, but does that even make sense to point out?
This is my last post. It was interesting talking to you, Maktab, and I wish you all the best.
While very persuasive (and an interesting read btw) that report still does not have the definitive weight of a UNSC resolution or UCJ ruling. And as I've said all along, the question of the legality of the original invasion is separate and irrelevant to the legality of the continued US presence in Iraq. I've been trying to avoid getting sucked into a discussion about the initial invasion only because I don't believe it's relevant to this specific discussion. That's all.
One last time: while the UN Security Council resolutions from UNSCR 1483 on, that you list, do not ipso facto make the occupation legal. There is not specific language declaring it to be legal, and absent that language, you cannot imply it to exist.
This is just it though, those resolutions (especially UNSCR 1511) are unambiguous and specific in making the presence of US-led coalition forces in Iraq legal. Your incorrect analysis of their content suggests that you don't have much experience in reading and interpreting UNSC resolutions and other instruments of international law. That's ok, but it might be worth scheduling a chat with an international law professor at a university near you if you want a deeper understanding.
(By the way, as I understand it, squatters rights only are possible when you don't break the law to enter.)
Not true, I mentioned that bit specifically because some countries have laws which enforce squatters' rights even when the initial occupation was unlawful. It makes sense though, as just because an initial action may be illegal it does not automatically render every subsequent action illegal.
I also think that Iraq is better off now, but that's an obtuse point.
I agree that it's pretty obtuse. I only mentioned it because you said that the people of Iraq will never see any of Iraq's wealth. I found that a curious statement. Perhaps I misinterpreted what you were trying to say.
In summary, I responded to your original post only because of one claim you made, which is that US forces are in Iraq illegally right now. The fact remains that even if you reject my assertion that the UNSC resolutions explicitly legalised the presence of US forces in Iraq under a Chapter VII mandate it still does not justify your claim that US forces are illegally occupying Iraq, because the US-Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement created an entirely new and separate legal framework under which US troops remain in the country. As a treaty between two sovereign governments, the SOFA supersedes anything that came before it and is unaffected by remaining questions about the legality of the initial invasion. It just makes no sense to refer to the current presence of US forces in Iraq as an 'illegal occupation' in 2010.
The legal basis for the continued US presence is well-established and widely known, so I'm surprised you feel confident enough to dare anybody to explain it to you. Subsequent to the invasion, the presence of US and other coalition forces in Iraq was legitimised by, in turn, UNSC Resolution 1483 (2003), 1546 (2004), 1637 (2005) and 1723 (2006), IIRC. The last action taken by the UNSC with regards to multinational forces in Iraq was to extend the mandate authorising their presence till December 2008. Thereafter, the continued presence of US forces in Iraq has been legally authorised by the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, which calls for US forces to leave the country by December 31, 2011. Whatever the moral case for a continued US presence in Iraq may be, the legal basis is sound.
Something else that's worth noting is that the Wikileaks video dates from 2007, during the height of combat operations surrounding the surge. At the time those sorts of engagements were a daily occurrence. This is no longer the case; these days the remaining US forces in Iraq are involved in relatively few direct combat operations and the overall level of violence in the country has dropped to a level where a slow US withdrawal is now possible without causing a security vacuum. From a US perspective Iraq is now a solved problem and the war is just about over. I must give credit to General Petraeus and his sane and unorthodox counter-insurgency strategy for that, for what it's worth.
So the stuff shown in the Wikileaks footage seldom happens in Iraq anymore. I would suggest that your time is better spent not impotently demanding that US forces leave now based on your reaction to a three year old video, but rather applying pressure on your representatives to ensure the planned withdrawal from Iraq happens on time and that US combat operations in that country end as scheduled on 31 August. I see no reason why it won't though, and in my opinion Afghanistan is a far more pressing concern on which to focus at the moment.