Handover in Iraq Comes Early/Bravo Bremer and Bush!

CNN said that the US presence in Iraq has ended. But, oh what's that? There's still 130,000+ US troops there? Uh, um, er, but we handed over power! You say Halliburton is still getting contracts and charging more than Iraqi firms? But, Bremer left the country! Lalalala, you're not gonna rain on my parade! [/sarcasm]

Yeah, they moved the ceremony up two days. Some masterful achievement of statesmanship and diplomacy.

 

Imagine if the presidential inauguration had to be done as a surprise to avoid the threat of violent disruption.

Still need some work on stabilizing the country.

 

The official explanation, IMO, is worse.

Allawi says he needs the 2 days to better deal with the insurgency.

Why in hell would 2 days be that critical?

 

this just helps disrupt insurgent operations a little.

the PR of any suicide attack will now be slightly less of an impact.

NATO has agreed to train Iraqi security forces - to me that is more significant of an announcement.

it still will be a long slog to helping the Iraqi's truly achieve a stable representative country - but this is a start.

 

===============

I'll be frequently visiting this thread to look at the UNENDING PESSIMISM from anti-Bush posters.

Not even when we transfer power to an offical Iraq government as the liberals we're pleading for, they now find something else to complain about!

Newsflash to the haters: it was a WAR! It didn't come easy and there will still be problems but stop your pessimism, we are progressing!

BTW: if you get your news just from CNN... I truly feel sorry for you. I will simply just reccommend getting a little bit of news from every source.

================

 

you just to understand the liberal bias inherent in the NSR part of the boards. No different than NPR or CNN. Just part of the landscape - like the homeless in San Diego.

 

I think there are two ways to look at this. It was done for security concerns, to keep June 30 from being a day full of violence and terrorist attacks. But I am also cynical enough to think Bush will use this to say "we handed over power early" when talking about Iraq, like they were good students or we were great teachers in this process. As long as we have all those troops there, Iraqi sovereignty will be a myth, a mirage like the elections Hussian held for his reelection.

 

The true test of Iraqi sovereignty will be what happens when they have their first election. Who will they elect to represent them? What will we do if he asks us to leave?


I heard CNN say: "This marks of the official end of the U.S. Occupation of Iraq."

 

And I don't. I read at least a dozen different newspapers and websites every morning, about 20/30 blogs throughout the day, and several magazines a week; I almost never watch any TV news except to see what they happen to be talking about at the moment I flip through. I quoted CNN like stopper4 just did to highlight the inane comments being made about how momentous this occasion is. Yes I want Iraqi sovereignty but this isn't it: if there are 160,000 troops still in your country and you have no control over them, then you need a different word to describe just what kind of power the government does possess.

 

Michael Ignatief makes a pretty compelling case in the NYT magazine for bringing the troops home immediately after those first elections.

As someone who was against the war from the beginning, mainly because I didn't believe the administration could manage the diplomacy and the difficulties occupation would entail, I'm fairly compelled by the logic of his last two sentences. Our troops are probably the only thing preventing all-out civil war. But we need to stop trying to determine the future of Iraq. It plays into all kinds of misconceptions about our ability to unilaterally create change. Hopefully the turnover of authority is a start and Iraqis will soon have the ability to determine whether they want to keep the laws that the CPA put in place.

I also hope this occupation will be a lesson to Americans about the limits of our power. I think Ignatief puts it very well...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/27/magazine/27WWLN.html?pagewanted=1

 

There IS great news today. Bremer has left, and for that we can all be grateful.

 

was there a MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner?

 

That crazy liberal-media CNN!

 

What happened? Some paperwork got signed and Bremer left the country. 130,000 troops, John Negroponte and Halliburton are still in the country.

Good luck to the Iraqi people. I hope it goes well for them.

 

Why in the world would this administration turn back now from from trying to determine the future of Iraq - that was their intent all along. God help us all if they get re-elected, since the whole of the Middle East will be next if the PNAC loons have anything to say about it. You have to consider that these guys just don't get the 'mis' part in the 'misconceptions' you're talking about.

 

Mike, that's my point. Your reason makes sense. But that's not the official reason.

 

So there isn't any difference between just criticizing the Bush administration and actually kidnaping and killing innocent civilians to you, is there?

 

I think the official reason was to save us all from another "So, How's the Occupation Going?" thread, but that's just me.

NYTimes is reporting that the Iraqi goverment requested the two days move up, so does it really matter whether that is what really happened or not? We should all be prepared for a shift in source of "news", from the decidedly subjective CPA briefings to the decidedly subjective Iraqi briefings. I for one am glad they signed it over. If it means two less car bombings removing limbs from passersby, good. If all that happens anyway, avoiding it was worth a shot.

Also, remember that June 30th was a deadline, not necessarily "the date". The media kept covering it to the point that it always got referred to as "the date", but entertain for a second the possibility that they've had this "move up" planned for six months, when they started calling it a deadline to begin with.

I don't understand complaining about it. We don't want to be there, they don't want us there. If anything gets moved up two days, it's a good thing.

 

Unless that thing happens to be the apocalypse.

 

Biggest laugh of the day is Rumsfeld saying that we are now holding Sadaam at the request of the Iraqis. He follows it up immediately with wonderfully Rumsfeldesque logic that what he said must be true because if it were not true the Iraqis would take over the job of holding Sadaam since they have FULL SOVEREIGNITY [repeat as often as needed to make sure it is believed].

 

I mostly agree with you here. I will however keep complaining about the coverage of this "transfer of sovreignty". From the first time I heard this on BBC World Service last night right up through NPR's ATC right now I've heard lots of talk of the momentous nature of this transfer, and that Iraqi's now control their own destiny, and then one little blurb on the true nature of what has happened - very little. I need to thank a new (to me) blog for providing the relevant information below: Upper Left

I encourage everyone to read the full essay by Prof. Schwartz at the middle/bottom of the page here to get a full understanding of the Potemkin nature of all of this.

However I'll use this piece from the WaPo which I'll summarize below to help illustrate the point:

Before leaving Bremer/CPA issued 97 orders that will be almost impossible for the Iraqi's to overturn should they want to. Of those some are seemingly well intentioned but unlikely to be enforced absent a firm hand by the US. Among these are: 15% cap on tax rates (like this should be our concern?), banning the piracy of Intellectual Property, Banning those under 15 from working (a good idea but again not really our immediate concern), a new traffic code, and mandating the 1/3 of all political candidates fielded by a party must be women (would WE even meet that standard?). Others seem to be truly antithetical to our stated goal to bring democracy to Iraq. These include: Mandating the the National Security Advisor and Intel Chief appointed by the interm gov't be kept on for 5 years; hand picking Inspector General's for every ministry for the next 5 years; creating regulatory commisions to oversee Communications, Public Broadcasting and the Securities Market; a Public Integrity Minister to refer "corrupt" officials for prosecution; and a hand picked 7 member Electoral Commision which has the power to ban any political party they (we) don't like. All of these are designed to let John "Deathsquad" Negroponte and the US pull the strings from behind the scenes.

We would be much better off telling the truth - that we are allowing Iraqi's some, extremely limited, self-government. Instead we will build up a false sense of independence for the Iraqi's, which they will be quickly disabused of, leading to even more resentment of us. Early quotes coming from the AP & NYT, again via Upper Left, already show at least some people thinking this way:

Anyway enough raining on people's parade for tonight.

 

Don't worry they will get Saddam and after the trial he will be beheaded.

Now all we have to see is iraqi forces getting these terrorist and start beheading them.

Then I am afraid the poll numbers will start moving favoring president Bush again. So much so even Super Dave will vote for Bush.

No one really believed the whole mission was going to be perfect without set backs.

 

No thinking person. I understood, and it was communicated by President Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. that the war on terror could last 10-20 years, but that it needed to be undertaken NOW! Only the delusional have the rediculous notion that anything other than the struggle we're now undertaking would be the result. I knew it would take years, maybe decades, and so did anyone with a brain who actually listened to what was said as we undertook this war on terror. Reality isn't a 2 hour movie of the week, it takes time, effort and sacrifice. Sometimes very unpleasant sacrifice.