"Iraq is not occupied, but there are foreign forces on its soil, which is different"
About this Quote
Talabani’s line performs the political equivalent of threading a needle while the room is on fire. “Iraq is not occupied” is less a description than a protective spell: a way to keep the young post-Saddam state from sounding like a client regime, and to keep his own presidency from reading as a Western appointment. Then comes the pivot - “but there are foreign forces on its soil” - a concession to what every Iraqi could see, delivered in the cool grammar of fact. The kicker is the last clause: “which is different.” That’s where the real work happens. It tries to turn a lived reality into a category error.
The subtext is sovereignty management. In the mid-2000s, Talabani had to hold together an impossible coalition: Iraqi factions suspicious of American power, an electorate humiliated by invasion, and an international security architecture that still depended on U.S.-led troops. Calling it an “occupation” would hand insurgents a rallying cry and paint the government as illegitimate. Denying foreign troops would insult the public and invite ridicule. So he splits the difference with semantics: occupation implies coercion and domination; “forces on its soil” implies permission, temporariness, a relationship framed as assistance rather than rule.
Why it works, rhetorically, is also why it feels brittle. The sentence is a tightrope between legalism and humiliation, between what a state needs to say to survive and what people know in their bones. It’s diplomacy as damage control, insisting on dignity in a landscape that keeps disproving it.
The subtext is sovereignty management. In the mid-2000s, Talabani had to hold together an impossible coalition: Iraqi factions suspicious of American power, an electorate humiliated by invasion, and an international security architecture that still depended on U.S.-led troops. Calling it an “occupation” would hand insurgents a rallying cry and paint the government as illegitimate. Denying foreign troops would insult the public and invite ridicule. So he splits the difference with semantics: occupation implies coercion and domination; “forces on its soil” implies permission, temporariness, a relationship framed as assistance rather than rule.
Why it works, rhetorically, is also why it feels brittle. The sentence is a tightrope between legalism and humiliation, between what a state needs to say to survive and what people know in their bones. It’s diplomacy as damage control, insisting on dignity in a landscape that keeps disproving it.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Jalal
Add to List



