When is a Sovereign Nation not a Sovereign Nation?

[demon]

When it`s being occupied by the US silly.

From some naughty strike breakers at BBC Online:

quote:
"President George W Bush has ruled out handing over command of US troops in Afghanistan to the government there".

[..]

"Afghan President Hamid Karzai said he would demand the move during talks with Mr Bush at the White House."

"Our troops will respond to US commanders," Mr Bush told journalists, when pressed on the issue.

He said the US and Afghans would "co-operate and consult" over military operations.

He also made no commitment to hand over prisoners to the Afghan authorities". (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4572657.stm)

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but having approx. 20,000 foreign troops on your soil, who are free to go where they want, when they want, and kill/detain/torture (with impunity from Afghan law), anyone they want to is not compatible with any notion of Afghan sovereignty or democracy that I`m familiar with.

Here`s more of the media version.
Simon Tisdall of the Guardian:
"Groundbreaking elections in Afghanistan, Ukraine, Palestine and Iraq, extolled in President Bush's 'dawn of freedom' inaugural address, have encouraged western hopes that democratic values are gaining universal acceptance." (Tisdall, 'Bush's democratic bandwagon hits a roadblock in Harare,' The Guardian, February 16, 2005)

The BBC's Clive Myrie describes America as "the champion of democracy", referring to "a role call of newly-minted democracies." (Myrie, BBC1, 13:00 News, February 23, 2005)

Looks to me that the Afghans and the Iraqis have a hell of a long wait if they are expecting anything close to what Bush keeps parroting...that guy seriously needs a new script writer.

[gnome]

While I think they should be held to Afghanistan's laws, I don't see the need to put US troops under foreign command. That's going a bit far.

[Ed]

Originally posted by demon
When is a Sovereign Nation not a Sovereign Nation?

When it does not excercise control over it's borders. Like the US.

[Bob Klase]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but having approx. 20,000 foreign troops on your soil, who are free to go where they want, when they want, and kill/detain/torture (with impunity from Afghan law), anyone they want to is not compatible with any notion of Afghan sovereignty or democracy that I`m familiar with.

The fact that US troops aren't under Afghan command does not mean they are free to do what they want, go wherever they want, etc.

We have troops in sovereign countries all over the world (Korea, Japan, Germany and many others). I'm not aware of any where they are "under the command" of that nation. In most cases they operate under an agreement (Status of Forces agreement) that specifies what they can and can't do.

Considering that Britain has (and has had) troops stationed in many different countries where Britain retains command I'm sure that the BBC is aware of the difference and their article merely shows their bias.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Ed
When it does not excercise control over it's borders. Like the US.

have you ever crossed the boarders? There seems to be alot of control excercised.

[Giz]

Originally posted by demon


quote:
"President George W Bush has ruled out handing over command of US troops in Afghanistan to the government there".


Handed over control of the US military to the country being liberated/rebuilt?

You mean like how Douglas MacArthur handed over control of US occupying forces to Hirohito after WW2?

Or how Eisenhower gave Roosevelt the heave-ho and reported to Churchill after moving to England pre D-Day (and then prostrated himself before Charles de Gaulle once he'd relocated to France).

Oh no, I remember now - they didn't. Get real.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Giz
Handed over control of the US military to the country being liberated/rebuilt?

You mean like how Douglas MacArthur handed over control of US occupying forces to Hirohito after WW2?

Or how Eisenhower gave Roosevelt the heave-ho and reported to Churchill after moving to England pre D-Day (and then prostrated himself before Charles de Gaulle once he'd relocated to France).

Oh no, I remember now - they didn't. Get real.

Well, then let's call it what it is: an Occupation Force.

Certainly not a Liberation Force.

[Giz]

Originally posted by Mark
Well, then let's call it what it is: an Occupation Force.

Certainly not a Liberation Force.

1) This is Afghanistan not Iraq (FWIW). I'd imagine things are slightly more liberated now than under the Taliban.

2) The whole "there are US troops in country X, therefore X is not free" is bollocks. There are US troops in Britain, Germany etc - are these not soveriegn nations? (I don't remember GI's interfering with our elections earlier this month?)

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Giz
(I don't remember GI's interfering with our elections earlier this month?) ...we're not that ham-handed...it was very subtle...

[Ed]

Originally posted by Tmy
have you ever crossed the boarders? There seems to be alot of control excercised.

If you follow the rules, sure. If not, not.

[geni]

Originally posted by Bob Klase
The fact that US troops aren't under Afghan command does not mean they are free to do what they want, go wherever they want, etc.

We have troops in sovereign countries all over the world (Korea, Japan, Germany and many others). I'm not aware of any where they are "under the command" of that nation. In most cases they operate under an agreement (Status of Forces agreement) that specifies what they can and can't do.

Considering that Britain has (and has had) troops stationed in many different countries where Britain retains command I'm sure that the BBC is aware of the difference and their article merely shows their bias.

The article simply reports demands and the fact that they have been rejected. It goes no further.

[shecky]

Originally posted by Ed
When it does not excercise control over it's borders. Like the US.

What would this make North Korea?

[Mark]

Originally posted by Giz
1) This is Afghanistan not Iraq (FWIW). I'd imagine things are slightly more liberated now than under the Taliban.

2) The whole "there are US troops in country X, therefore X is not free" is bollocks. There are US troops in Britain, Germany etc - are these not soveriegn nations? (I don't remember GI's interfering with our elections earlier this month?)

I'm sorry, but if our military is refusing to follow the direction of the duly elected, democratic government there, then it is an Occupation Force. You may feel things are better there now (and I would agree), but it is still an Occupation Force.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by shecky
What would this make North Korea?

Sovereign, for the time being.

A nation remains soverign so long as they can maintain, through force of arms or diplomatic persuasion, the extent of it's boarders (as Ed suggested) and the determination of it's body politic.

We lack mildly in one (but others like Ed may disagree somewhat) but are very serious about the other, at least in this, and the last, four year term.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Bob Klase
Considering that Britain has (and has had) troops stationed in many different countries where Britain retains command I'm sure that the BBC is aware of the difference and their article merely shows their bias. British forces abroad are mostly under NATO, which always has (by US insistence) a US commander. The US has always refused to have US forces under allied command except in the most exceptional circumstances and to a background of loud protest. Consider the fuss that was made over Montgomery taking command of US 1st Army units after General Hodges ran away screaming like a girl. Or Pershing's refusal to integrate with the Allies on the Western Front except in a few cases, and then reluctantly. The British and Empire troops, in contrast, served under French command. "UN Forces" are always under US command. The US attitude on this is a bit of a feature.

The Brits in Imperial mode didn't hand command to the locals, of course, and empires aren't by nature an allied enterprise.

Whether SOFA infringes on sovereignty is a contentious point. I think it does in principle, but that the practical effect is what's important.

The US is an Occupation Force in Afghanistan, just as it was in Germany for a period after WW2. They didn't go to Germany in order to occupy it, they went there because that's where the Nazis were. Since their intention was to screw over the Nazis in as short order as possible, the logic is unassailable. Occupation was a side-effect, as it is in Afghanistan.

In the early post-war years the Allies were running prison-camps without any reference to Germans, but the US presence morphed into the NATO-based, Cold War function in a sovereign NATO member. By that point they weren't running prison-camps (except for US personnel) outside the jurisdiction of West Germany, and wouldn't have expected to. Given that the current Afghan government is not provisional or transitional but the recognised legitimate government and a sovereign ally of the US, this situation at Bagram is a new departure. Karzai can't put up with it - and the US would be well advised to give him a victory on this one, for everybody's sake.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Mark
I'm sorry, but if our military is refusing to follow the direction of the duly elected, democratic government there, then it is an Occupation Force. Careful. It's not a question of getting the U.S. forces to obey the laws of Afghanistan. Karzai asked for command of those troops, and no U.S. president would ever agree to turning over command of American troops to a foreign head of state.
You may feel things are better there now (and I would agree), but it is still an Occupation Force. It's an occupation force if it's there against the will of the host country. Is that the case here?

[Mark]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Careful. It's not a question of getting the U.S. forces to obey the laws of Afghanistan. Karzai asked for [b]command of those troops, and no U.S. president would ever agree to turning over command of American troops to a foreign head of state.
It's an occupation force if it's there against the will of the host country. Is that the case here?

If Bush is accepting overall direction from Karzai and then sending orders to the troops, I agree. And that is how it should be. But if Bush is acting unilaterally, then it is an occupation force.

As to your second point, it is a very fine line. Does Karzai really want us to stay? I don't know. Maybe. More importantly, would we leave if he told us too? I seriously doubt it.

[Phillybee]

Consider the fuss that was made over Montgomery taking command of US 1st Army units after General Hodges ran away screaming like a girl

What incident does this refer to?

[Ed]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Careful. It's not a question of getting the U.S. forces to obey the laws of Afghanistan. Karzai asked for command of those troops, and no U.S. president would ever agree to turning over command of American troops to a foreign head of state.


I seem to recall Regan offering to turn over elements of one of our fleets to the Brits after they lost that cruser during the Falklands War if the UK suffered more losses. Notable because it is unprecidented. Again, the Brits are different I think.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
We lack mildly in one (but others like Ed may disagree somewhat) but are very serious about the other, at least in this, and the last, four year term.

I am, of course, being a bit arch but the fact remains that our southern border is largely open (as is the north). The fit will hit the shan if the next terrorist incident is tracable to such an illegal crossing. Though I do not wish ill on our country, the imp in me would dearly love to hear the self serving crap that would eminate from Bush and every other Goat abuser in DC if such an event transpired.

[Giz]

Originally posted by Phillybee
What incident does this refer to?

He's refering to the Battle of the Bulge where Montgomery took over command of the northern flank of the battle and - while handling the situation competently - made himself somewhat less popular than the Wehrmacht.

The other points raised:
"Or Pershing's refusal to integrate with the Allies on the Western Front except in a few cases, and then reluctantly. The British and Empire troops, in contrast, served under French command. "UN Forces" are always under US command. "

1) In WW1 the US wanted (in it's first major war/European outing) to be seen as a major power with a seat at the big boys table (where Wilson would be able to push his vision - 14 points et blah). To see this happen, Wilson emphatically wanted a seperate American army serving under American generals (as opposed to US infantry being used as "filler" in UK/French formations.

Given the limits imposed by his boss, Pershing did all he could to lend Haig battalions as and when he could (treading a fine line between helping to win the war and not disobay his CinC) (at the time - mid 1918 - the US Army was not ready to take the field as a whole so technically, per wilson, Pershing should have been holding all his men back while the other Allies - who were sorted for artillery and logistics - had an infantry shortage).

2) Haig was not directly under French command*, being required to co-ordinate with the French while preserving the independence of the BEF.
Possible caveats;
a) Prior to the Nivelle offensive Lloyd George intrigued to get Haig subordinated to Nivelle for the duration of the Arras-Champagne offensives. Which rather backfired on LG.
b) Foch was appointed "generalisimo" in 1918, mostly on Haig's urging, to provide a counter balance to Petain's pessimism. Foch wasn't an Eisenhower, had no direct power (even over the French - Petain remained head of their army), he acted more as a co-ordinator/liason between the seperate allied armies than as a supreme commander.

* In 1914-15 Haig was under French command, but that's Field Marshall French. Who was a bit anti French, btw.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Mark
Does Karzai really want us to stay? I don't know. Then you really don't know if it's an occupation force.

[Mark]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Then you really don't know if it's an occupation force.

Hence my use of the word "if."

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Mark
Hence my use of the word "if." Hmmm... musta missed it when you said in your very first post here:Well, then let's call it what it is: an Occupation Force.

Certainly not a Liberation Force.But my eyes aren't as good as they used to be.

[Mark]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Hmmm... musta missed it when you said in your very first post here:But my eyes aren't as good as they used to be.

But you responded to, and quoted this post:

If Bush is accepting overall direction from Karzai and then sending orders to the troops, I agree. And that is how it should be. But if Bush is acting unilaterally, then it is an occupation force.

As to your second point, it is a very fine line. Does Karzai really want us to stay? I don't know. Maybe. More importantly, would we leave if he told us too? I seriously doubt it.



3 uses of the word "if" from my post that you quoted. Get your eyes checked right away.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Mark
3 uses of the word "if" from my post that you quoted. Get your eyes checked right away. Don't have to. I already know they're #$%^...

So you're backing off from your initial unqualified claim that it is an "occupation"? Just checking.

[Mark]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Don't have to. I already know they're #$%^...

So you're backing off from your initial unqualified claim that it is an "occupation"? Just checking.

*sigh*

First of all, the original post's context was in response to a comment comparing our presence there to WW2 occupation forces.

As the conversation progressed, I made it clear---and specific---what my exact thoughts were.

No, I have not backed off from anything. You are---for reasons only you can know---taking comments out of context and ignoring others completely to suit your purpose.

[BPSCG]

Well, now you have me thoroughly confused. Some of your posts seem to say that it is definitely an occupation force, others seem to say it may not be, depending on whether or not the U.S. would leave if asked to do so.

So, is it an occupation force?

Yes.
No.
Not sure.

Pick one and stick to it.

[Mark]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Well, now you have me thoroughly confused. Some of your posts seem to say that it is definitely an occupation force, others seem to say it may not be, depending on whether or not the U.S. would leave if asked to do so.

So, is it an occupation force?

Yes.
No.
Not sure.

Pick one and stick to it.

If we are there without the direction and/or support of the duly elected government, then it is an occupation force.

If one wants to say our mission there is the same as our mission in post-WW2 Japan or Germany, then it would also have to be an occupation force, because that's what we were in those countries. I did not make that comparision, someone else did.

I don't know if we have the Karzai government's support or not, therefore I can't say for certain at the point just what we should call our forces in Afghanistan. I have my suspicions, but they remain only that at this point.

Simple enough for you? Or do I need to use smaller words?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Mark
If we are there without the direction and/or support of the duly elected government, then it is an occupation force.

If one wants to say our mission there is the same as our mission in post-WW2 Japan or Germany, then it would also have to be an occupation force, because that's what we were in those countries. I did not make that comparision, someone else did.

I don't know if we have the Karzai government's support or not, therefore I can't say for certain at the point just what we should call our forces in Afghanistan. I have my suspicions, but they remain only that at this point.

Simple enough for you? Or do I need to use smaller words? "Not sure."

[Mark]

Originally posted by BPSCG
"Not sure."

Overly simplified in the context of this thread. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. It is something I find very annoying and difficult to respond to with any degree of politeness.

[Kerberos]

When its government doesn't command the necessary military force, to effectively control its own territory. Afghanistan's government doesn't nor would they if the US military pulled out, or even if it was placed under their command.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Giz
1) In WW1 the US wanted (in it's first major war/European outing) to be seen as a major power with a seat at the big boys table (where Wilson would be able to push his vision - 14 points et blah). To see this happen, Wilson emphatically wanted a seperate American army serving under American generals (as opposed to US infantry being used as "filler" in UK/French formations.

Given the limits imposed by his boss, Pershing did all he could to lend Haig battalions as and when he could (treading a fine line between helping to win the war and not disobay his CinC) (at the time - mid 1918 - the US Army was not ready to take the field as a whole so technically, per wilson, Pershing should have been holding all his men back while the other Allies - who were sorted for artillery and logistics - had an infantry shortage).Not to derail, but Pershing was the driving force behind the policy, not Wilson. Wilson certainly didn't want voters losing loved ones, but Pershing called the play. He allowed a few divisions to be used in Allied corps to blood some officers, but that took persuasion. They had to create not only divisional staff - not too hard given the education and energy available - but corps and army as well, from almost nothing. No wonder the first offensive was a bloodbath. War is crap.

But fascinating.

2) Haig was not directly under French command*, being required to co-ordinate with the French while preserving the independence of the BEF.
Possible caveats;
a) Prior to the Nivelle offensive Lloyd George intrigued to get Haig subordinated to Nivelle for the duration of the Arras-Champagne offensives. Which rather backfired on LG.
b) Foch was appointed "generalisimo" in 1918, mostly on Haig's urging, to provide a counter balance to Petain's pessimism. Foch wasn't an Eisenhower, had no direct power (even over the French - Petain remained head of their army), he acted more as a co-ordinator/liason between the seperate allied armies than as a supreme commander.I was pretty much referring to the caveats. When it comes down to cock-on-the-block time, any national unit is going to look to itself.

* In 1914-15 Haig was under French command, but that's Field Marshall French. Who was a bit anti French, btw. Confused the hell out the Krauts, though. And probably the Yanks. :)

[CapelDodger]

The Afghanistan situation is at least highlighting the fact that sovereignty is not binary, you've got it or you ain't. Afghanistan clearly doesn't have sovereignty in the way that, say, France does, and France (as an EU member) doesn't have sovereignty the way the US does.

There's no particularly good reason why the disparate group of peoples that lives in the country designated "Afghanistan" should have sovereignty. The borders were drawn up as a buffer-state by Brits and Russians in the late 19thCE (with an eye to Iran and a mutual disquiet about Germany). Given sovereignty they'd just be bad to each other.

A long-term solution will involve splitting the place up, possibly handing some bits off to neighbouring countries (Herat to Iran, for instance), and giving groups sovereignty over themselves but not over other groups. Thus doing away with many of the causes of conflict. Much the same will have to happen to Iraq. The sooner the nettle is grasped (or the can of worms opened) the sooner we can all move on.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Ed
When it does not excercise control over it's borders. Like the US.
This is hyperbole. The US controls its boarders to the same extent as most every country in the world. Really, who is THAT obsessed over the borders of non hostile neighboring countries????

[Ed]

Originally posted by Tmy
This is hyperbole. The US controls its boarders to the same extent as most every country in the world. Really, who is THAT obsessed over the borders of non hostile neighboring countries????

I would like to see some proof of that contention but it is not particularly relevant.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Ed
I would like to see some proof of that contention but it is not particularly relevant.

How about the passport system. You get one little piece of paper, put a stamp and picture on it, and your basically free to enter most any country on the planet so long as you can afford the plane ticket.

Why dont you name me a country that DOES have a secure boarder (with a non threatening neighbor.) Are there any non wacko countries whos entire boarder is proctected by some barrier and guards??

[WildCat]

All your country are belong to us.

[TeaBag420]

Originally posted by Tmy
How about the passport system. You get one little piece of paper, put a stamp and picture on it, and your basically free to enter most any country on the planet so long as you can afford the plane ticket.

Why dont you name me a country that DOES have a secure boarder (with a non threatening neighbor.) Are there any non wacko countries whos entire boarder is proctected by some barrier and guards??

Yeah, and anyone with $25,000 can get a Belize passport, and anyone with enough Irish ancestry can get (I think this may have changed recently) an Irish passport.

As for your second issue, the Republic of China.

AND FER CHISSAKES, PEOPLE, IT'S MOTHERLOVIN' FIRETRUCKIN' "BORDER"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NOT "BOARDER" GOT IT?????????

[Skeptic]

Overly simplified in the context of this thread.

Yes, it's so rude of BSPCG to not understand that you want to insinuate that the US is an "occupation force" without actually saying so explicitly.

That is what counts, in your view, as a non-"oversimplified" position.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Tmy
How about the passport system. You get one little piece of paper, put a stamp and picture on it, and your basically free to enter most any country on the planet so long as you can afford the plane ticket.

Why dont you name me a country that DOES have a secure boarder (with a non threatening neighbor.) Are there any non wacko countries whos entire boarder is proctected by some barrier and guards??

Entering a country with a passport is a legal means of entry. As I recall Australia is pretty touchy about illeagal entry.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Tmy
How about the passport system. You get one little piece of paper, put a stamp and picture on it, and your basically free to enter most any country on the planet so long as you can afford the plane ticket.Passport validity is still defined between nations, not by some trans-national system. The British created the idea of a British passport-holder without rights of residence in (or entry to) the UK. Ho Chi Minh and General Giap could have obtained French passports under a few Republics, but that wouldn't have got them into the US at any point. Countries are free to rate passports as they see fit. A North Korean passport, for instance, will not get you easily through many BORDERS, if any.

[TeaBag420]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Passport validity is still defined between nations, not by some trans-national system. The British created the idea of a British passport-holder without rights of residence in (or entry to) the UK. Ho Chi Minh and General Giap could have obtained French passports under a few Republics, but that wouldn't have got them into the US at any point. Countries are free to rate passports as they see fit. A North Korean passport, for instance, will not get you easily through many BORDERS, if any. [/B]

Uncle Ho could have easily traveled to the U.S. on a French passport when he was a student in Paris. North Koreans regularly travel to Japan (sometimes they even bring Japanese people home with them). Now YOU go find some facts.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Ed
Entering a country with a passport is a legal means of entry. As I recall Australia is pretty touchy about illeagal entry.

The issue was whether the US border was any less secure then your average countries.

As for Australia. I dont think they really have much of a secure border considering they are not physically attached to any other country. Do they have coast guard boats constantly patroling the thousands of miles of coastline?? I dont think so.