Iraq May Hold Vote on Early U.S. Withdrawal – washingtonpost.com

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s move appeared to disregard the wishes of the U.S. government, which has quietly lobbied against the plebiscite. American officials fear it could lead to the annulment of an agreement allowing U.S. troops to stay until the end of 2011, and instead force them out by the start of that year.

This has always been a key tension in the Iraq War.  A lot of our problems there stem from the fact that our interests have diverged — or at least been seen as divergent — from the interests of the Iraq people and Iraqi elites.

If the Iraqis want us to leave, that should really be the end of the debate.  We have no causus belli with the current government.  They are not in violation of Security Council resolutions.  Some commentators have argued that Iraqi sovereignty is “a fiction” that we can disregard at our pleasure.  This argument makes no sense. Iraq has democratically elected government.  They are effectively an American ally at present.  We have to accept the wishes of the Iraqi government and people.  Otherwise, we are simply engaged in an imperialist occupation, illegal under both international and domestic law.

There is another story that raises a similar issue.  This time from the NYT:

Peace Talks With Taliban Top Issue in Afghan Vote – NYTimes.com

Essentially everyone in Afghanistan seems to support the idea of peace talks with the Taliban.  Peace talks will, inevitably require at a minimum amnesty and reintegration for Taliban fighters, but will likely require either some power sharing or local autonomy agreements with Taliban leaders.

The United States policy is that :

“We and our Afghan allies stand ready to welcome anyone supporting the Taliban who renounces Al Qaeda, lays down their arms, and is willing to participate in the free and open society that is enshrined in the Afghan Constitution,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in a speech last month.

As the Times dryly notes:

Yet critics say that essentially demanding that the Taliban surrender will not produce results.

Ya think?

Here is a case where we are setting ourselves up for grief by laying out political goals that outstrip that of our local allies. Now, maybe this is a sophisticated “good cop, bad cop” routine.  I doubt it.  I think that in reality, we have much more ambitious goals in Afghanistan than virtually anyone in their governing apparatus.  And it isn’t just vis-a-vis the Taliban.  It is also in relation to issues like corruption, the size and capabilities of the Afghan National Army, the eradication of the drug trade.  We’re not fighting there is support of our allies, the “good Afghans.”  We’re fighting a war to achieve a tremendously expansive goal of transforming Afghanistan, and in doing so, we’re largely at odds with our local allies.