(Ahlul Bayt News Agency) - We talked with Edward Peck, former US Ambassador to Iraq who also is mindful of using the word occupation as it doesn't fit the true definition according to him though he concedes that the majority of Iraqis don't want them there. Following is a transcript of the interview.
Q: The legislators refer to the US troops as occupying forces. How has this been viewed in the US both by the administration and the media?
Edward Peck: It hasn't gotten that much attention. Our government acts negatively toward the use of the word 'occupation' because the American government has always insisted that they're there as 'liberators' if you will and supporters of the current regime.
Clearly those people who are opposed, the allegedly 100 members of the Iraqi parliament, refer to them as occupation forces. But, with the number of people that are there wearing American uniforms, it is kind of hard to see that as an occupation in the true sense of the word.
Q: We have reports of US soldiers being killed in Iraqi cities, but the question is -- aren't they supposed to remain in their bases?
Edward Peck: Well, some of them according to reports are being killed when the bases are attacked and of course the real problem here is that the American troops are supposed to be in support; they're not supposed to be in a combat situation. But if they are attacked then of course they're in a combat situation. I have always had the impression that they were supposed to stay in their camps and provide training and support for the Iraqi forces and police.
Q: The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the US and some countries obliges the host nation to pay for the US' military presence, but the occupying forces are normally responsible for the security matters of the occupied nations. How can this be explained given the high material and human costs Iraq has been paying in the course of the past few years?
Edward Peck: You've put your finger on one of the issues that makes it difficult for me to talk about this because Americans keep looking at the cost to the US in blood and money in what they're doing there -- understandably I suppose, but unfortunately not paying that much attention to the costs to the Iraqi people and Iraq as a nation has and are sustaining as a result of the American invasion and continued presence (I don't want to use the word occupation).
So we have a difficulty here, there's a disconnect and an awful lot of people think that we should stay until whatever it is and the Americans keep talking about it, but I get the distinct impression that there are people in Iraq who would like us to stay -- the Kurds and perhaps other minorities -- but the overwhelming majority of the people seem to be prepared to ask the Americans to leave as scheduled.
/106
