“To have your cake and eat it too” is a popular figure of speech meaning to try to have two incompatible things. Of course, comedian George Carlin pointed out that the phrase doesn’t make complete sense: “When people say, ‘Oh you just want to have your cake and eat it too,’ what good is a cake you can’t eat? What should I eat, someone else’s cake instead?” Indeed, the more proper (and original, but less popular) expression is “You can’t eat your cake and have it too.” This is currently the case as Iraq and the United States try to negotiate an agreement about keeping U.S. forces in Iraq after the end of this year (when the UN mandate for U.S. troops expires).
According to a declaration of principles signed by President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki last November, the United States is committed to a “long-term relationship” with Iraq that includes “security assurances and commitments.” But as with most things, the devil is in the details. In this case, the details include how many U.S. troops will remain in Iraq and for how long. (Prior to invading Iraq, the president declared, “We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more.” And in June 2005, he proclaimed, “As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.” Three years later, there are over 150,000 U.S. soldiers still in Iraq and we have yet to stand down.)
Given the current state of Iraqi forces, it is clear that the Maliki government is utterly dependent on the United States to provide some semblance of security in Iraq. But the very presence of U.S. forces also undermines the sovereignty of Iraq and at least creates the perception that the government is being propped up by an outside power. In an effort to eat their cake and have it too, the Iraqis want U.S. troops confined to their barracks as part of the post-2008 status of forces agreement (SOFA) between the two countries. Yet, if the Iraqis are unable to enforce security on their own, keeping U.S. troops in their barracks will do them little good.
Whether the United States will continue to be able to eat its cake and have it too is also an issue of any future SOFA between Iraq and the United States. The Iraqis want private security companies to be subject to Iraqi law. Currently, these companies enjoy immunity, which triggered outrage when security personnel from Blackwater, the largest private security company in Iraq, were involved in a firefight that killed 17 civilians in Baghdad last September.
The larger problem, however, is that any SOFA means continued U.S. military occupation – which has been consistently opposed by the Iraqi people. Indeed, a February poll showed that 73 percent of Iraqis (77 percent of Shi’ites and 95 percent of Sunnis) oppose the presence of foreign troops in their country. And last month, thousands of followers of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr took to the streets to protest the proposed Iraqi-American agreement – chanting “No, no to America. No, no to the occupation.” Sadr’s main Shi’ite rival – Adbul Aziz al-Hakim, who heads the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq – also opposes such a plan. And Iraq’s most influential Shi’ite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has also expressed concern about the prospect of a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq.
Of course, President Bush doesn’t see any problem with U.S. forces staying in Iraq. Delivering the commencement address at the United States Air Force Academy, he said,
“After World War II, we helped Germany and Japan build free societies and strong economies. These efforts took time and patience, and as a result, Germany and Japan grew in freedom and prosperity. Germany and Japan, once mortal enemies, are now allies of the United States. And people across the world reaped the benefits from that alliance. Today, we must do the same in Afghanistan and Iraq. By helping these young democracies grow in freedom and prosperity, we’ll lay the foundation of peace for generations to come.”
Comparing Hussein to Hitler to justify invading Iraq was inappropriate, and so is comparing Iraq to postwar Germany and Japan to justify staying in Iraq. At the end of World War II, enemies formally surrendered, hostilities ended, basic security existed, and the local populations essentially accepted occupation – conditions that do not exist in Iraq.
Ultimately, both the U.S. and Iraqi governments must acknowledge that they cannot eat their cake and have it too. Even if a SOFA can be reached, the U.S. troop presence is detrimental to both countries’ interests. Iraq cannot be a sovereign government as long as foreign troops occupy the country; they are and will continue to be a reason for Iraqis to distrust and reject their own government. And they are and will continue to be a reason for Iraqis – and Muslims around the world – to harbor ill will and fuel hatred toward the United States, which will only help terrorist recruiting efforts.
Removing U.S. troops will not solve all the problems that ail Iraq, nor will it mend U.S. relations with the Muslim world. But the reality is that our presence in Iraq is part of the problem and not part of the solution.
