June 28, 2004

The handover of power in Iraq is happening sooner than we thought. Instead of the planned June 30 date, it seems that the handover was brought forward for security concerns. Details (and informative links) are scarce right, but it seems that Baghdad has already been handed over, with the rest of the country changing hands right now. We've got history in the making here, folks. What will this mean for Iraq and the US?
posted by Mfpb 2 21 20 years ago
  • (I'd also just like to point out that if it weren't for the insomniacs (like me) watching CNN at 2:30 in the morning, the entire USA probably wouldn't have known this for another 6 hours or so. I'm proud of myself!) (um, just kidding.)
  • It's been brought forward 3 days. Historically, this must be significant. Thanks for posting this, it's interesting.
  • And there was much rejoicing in the land and then they ate all the politicians.
  • The handover of power in Iraq is happening sooner than we thought. Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh.
  • It means nothing significant, because the US isn't leaving Iraq and the handover of power is just a pretense. The only thing it seems to indicate is the panic of the current administration, perhaps trying to create a distraction from other rather more embarrassing stuff in the news.
  • So cynical Nostril. Of course they're free. Just like the Jews were free to have Herod as a king.
  • Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh. That's the way I like it!
  • A low-level sensible idea, moving it forward a few days to bypass any potential farewell party the insurgents prepared had for Paul Bremer. It does, however, seem to throw into sharp relief just how nominal this restoration of sovereignty is. The primary thing we have to watch out for is the January 2 elections. It's hard to see how elections could take place in a security climate that even remotely resembles the current situation - but it can't be a good thing if the current group of parachuted-in interested parties get to push the elections further and further back, even if it's for good reasons. Good luck to them, though.
  • Can't wait to see how sovereign they will be when they ask the US to leave.
  • Results? Less beheadings More cowbell
  • Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Like flashboy said, until there are country-wide elections, the credibility of the new government is on pretty shaky ground.
  • Credibility is something built over time, which this government hasn't had any of yet - let's give them a chance? And we all knew that the American presence in Iraq was going to continue unabated, if only for the sole reason of giving the Iraqis a chance to develop reach and support before the Baathists strangled them. Personally, I'm optimistic. And remember the South Korean example - just because we have a military presence somewhere does NOT mean that we are controlling puppetmasters. The sooner we hand over control, the sooner the Iraqi Parliament can begin building its own efficacy and credibility, and the sooner Iraq will mellow the hell out. also: in addition to the January election, what they do with Saddam will be a significant test/opportunity for the new government.
  • "what they do with Saddam will be a significant test/opportunity for the new government." (my bolding) You really think the US is going to hand over Saddam and let him go on trail in Iraq? I would be really surprised. What will happen is that Saddam wil be put on trail at a militairy court (behind closed doors) and then given the death scentence. This might well coïncide with the US elections.
  • I do. I can't imagine that they'd do anything BUT hand him over to the Iraqis. They've declared their intention to do so on several occasions.
  • In a sense, yes, they are - they're not giving him over to Iraqi custody, but say that it's up to the Iraqi justice system what happens to him. Which is probably quite sensible, given the number of Saddam loyalists still in the Iraqi security forces.
  • Easy, guys... I put my pants on just like the rest of you - one leg at a time. Except, once my pants are on... I return sovreignty to Middle Eastern countries...you're gonna need more cowbell.
  • Iraq's got a fever! And the only prescription... is more cowbell!
  • so the UN is now going to help train iraqi security. from what my brother tells me, the iraqis don't want any training. they just want us to get the hell out. handing over the power? right. we won't hand over anything, least of all the keys to the oil buildings, until we're damn sure we won't have to come back tomorrow and point guns at anyone to keep our oil coming. i'll believe the power has been handed over when i see iraqi leaders telling the foreign troops currently in-country what to do, and when to do it, and then see them actually listen to those orders. until then it's an occupied country with a puppet government, and the whole transfer-o'-power farce is a feel-good set up to make the 2004 elections easier for BushCo. i'm not saying it will remain a puppet government, but there's no legitimacy there right now, is there? democracy means the people choose thier leaders, and right now the people choosing the iraqi leaders don't live in iraq. until this is fixed, iraq is still broken, and our men and women are going to remain there trying to patch it together before it implodes. there's no easy way out, despite what the government pukes keep telling us. if it's so simple to hand over power, why are we gearing up for a national draft?
  • You really think the US is going to hand over Saddam and let him go on trail in Iraq? They are and they will. There's been a group of Iraqi prosecutors that have been building the case. From the pieces that I've heard about it, they want to trial to be very public, and very transparent.
  • from what my brother tells me, the iraqis don't want any training. they just want us to get the hell out. Sure! I do too. The problem is that, if we were to do exactly that, the Saddamies would go on a rampage, you'd end up with an Iraq even more benighted than it was when we started (which was considerable benightment on its own), and all the dead people on both sides would be for nothing. handing over the power? right. Why bother to announce that you are - two days early even - if you were ultimately not going to? Better to just keep it and not bother with the PR. until we're damn sure we won't have to come back tomorrow and point guns at anyone to keep our oil coming. I won't downplay the significance of Iraqi oil exports - but it *is* their new government's best and most remunerative source of funds. But to me, it seems again like, if oil were the only motivating factor, why not just take it and dispense with all the foofaraw? Why not pull troops back from the cities where they are dying and surround the oil fields and pipelines? Or better yet, why not ask the five countries from whom we import more oil than Iraq (In order: Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria) to each add a bit to the total and tell Iraq to go hang? the whole transfer-o'-power farce is a feel-good set up to make the 2004 elections easier for BushCo. Like that's worked so well for them so far! Little early for an October surprise. Personally, I think they had to do this just to stay in the game - to postpone the handover would have given the Democrats a PR arsenal against them. i'm not saying it will remain a puppet government, but there's no legitimacy there right now, is there? I agree - the Iraqis will have to earn their legitimacy. That takes time - we can't hand them legitimacy on June 30 (or whenever), but our soldiers can (and hopefully will) buy them the time to earn it. right now the people choosing the iraqi leaders don't live in iraq. until this is fixed, iraq is still broken, and our men and women are going to remain there trying to patch it together before it implodes. I agree; hence the importance of the January election. there's no easy way out, despite what the government pukes keep telling us. I don't see them saying any such thing (although one might consider the whole "mission accomplished" dabacle tantamount to saying it, although I think they were more referring to the war itself). I see the administration saying exactly what you are: that we're going to be there for a while. if it's so simple to hand over power, why are we gearing up for a national draft? I don't believe we are; reinstituting the draft would polarize the America voters in a way that neither party wants; some people in Congress are using prospective Draft bills to let slip a bit of that polarization in hopes that it'll energize their constituencies, but I find it very difficult to believe that Congress would pass and Bush would sing a draft bill that would almost certainly ensure his defeat, is not needed, and that the military doesn't want.
  • Bush would sing a draft bill that would almost certainly ensure his defeat That's just what we need: Bush to start singing. Sorry, couldn't resist. Nothing useful to read here. Move along.
  • monkeyfilter: less beheadings, more cowbell
  • That's just what we need: Bush to start singing. That definitely needs more cowbell.
  • Surly, no! Don't leave yet! MY HOUR'S NOT UP YET DAMN IT I PAID GOOD MONEY FOR THIS!
  • "..difficult to believe that Congress would pass and Bush would sign a draft bill that would almost certainly ensure his defeat.." He's not going to do it *before* the elections, obviously. And it has become clear that Congress doesn't really do it's job properly. The Patriot act went thru' without being read. "[a draft bill] .. is not needed, and that the military doesn't want." The draft *will* be needed, because the US has finite troop resources for a 'war on terror' that has been predicted by the current administration to last years. What the military wants is irrelevant, judging by the way Rumsfeld does his job.
  • And if a draft is not needed, or desired, what is this bill which is on the floor of congress, waiting to be voted upon? It has a little sister, H.R. 163. They're both the same thing except one sits with the House, one with the Senate. Also, do some research on the Selective Service System plan. Bush is spending $30 million to have the system ready for him in March '05. What does this mean? You don't understand yet?
  • A login account for homunculus' washington post link: bigwig@bigwig.com bigwig
  • So, the Democrats (Hollings sponsored the Senate one) are writing draft bills now that Bush will wait to sign until after election? Nice of them. Can't find the house one you mention, that website has no record of it. But the Senate one isn't on the "floor" for a vote, according to that website, it's been parked in the Armed Services Committee. As for finite troops, they haven't even called up a great many reserve units. According to these two websites 1 2, the total number of reservists in the US military is apprx. 1.2 million; as of last week, about 156,000 reservists have been called to active duty, around 13%. So I stand by my orignal assertion.
  • PF: You're gonna be at the Cabana at 5:30 or so, right? Nobody's heard from you...
  • Factcheck.org has also declared "pantload" on the Big Draft of 2005.
  • Notice the White House has been rather silent on the handover. From my understanding this was Bush and Rove panicking and insisting on never changing the date. Now it has become a joke. The truth is June 30 makes zero difference on the ground in Iraq. For the record: I actually support the handover. It's the Iraqis' country, not ours. Although, I do not think they will be ready to run a country.
  • Oh, well, Fes, if Rumsfeld says it's not true, then it must not be. I do admire your optimism!
  • Nostrildamus my friend, I can't *force* you to believe it, and wouldn't presume to try :) But I've found factcheck.org overall to be a reliable source - nonpartisan and well researched - and that Rumsfeld quote is just the very tip of this particular article. They also make mention of the low number of combat reserve units currently activated.
  • Alright. So what are those pieces of legislation for, then? Just to look good? I mean.. wtf? I don't really give a fuck, if you have a draft, to be honest, I live in Australia. I'm laughing all the way to the keg.
  • Just to look good? I mean.. wtf? My guess would be exactly that - to get the attention of and generate controversy for the press and cameras, to make a political point, to instigate rampant fear of an impending draft and to let slip a teeny bit of the shock and dismay among the other mostly-complacent electorate that would attend an *actual* reinstatement of the draft.
  • "Power."
  • (nice rebuttal by the way, fes.) lemme add a bit here - from the things i've heard, through my brother and his brother in law / my old high school buddy (both reserves, one in-country now, the other recently returned, respectively) the stop-loss methods the army has in place effectively makes it impossible now to serve your tour then get out. the fine print says you're there for 8 years, period. they're talking of doing rotations - one year in, a few months out, then another year in - for the "experienced" troops, because they already have "built up a rapport with the local populace". in other words, if you get sent over don't expect to see your family much for the next few years. they haven't been able to send enough people over yet, because they don't have enough people trained yet to replace the people in-country, so they're just going to keep cycling them in and out, because troops coming home makes for good press (not much press on the people going back though, right?). of course we also have people in germany, cuba, afghanistan (remember afghanistan, anyone? apparently bush doesn't), and everywhere else we have military bases. the current setup has the troops stretched too thin, no matter what numbers they can massage to show we're strong. telling the public that we have too many people commited in too many places to effectively defend anywhere is just asking for trouble, so of course they'll find a way to say it ain't bad right now. well, the sheer number of people applying to get the hell out, and not re-upping when given the opportunity to do so says quite a bit about the current state of miltary affairs. plus, they're doing everything they can to make sure that our men and women overseas are going to get screwed when they do get home. what with the miltary benefits cutbacks, my buddy can't get treatment for the two disks he shoved out of place when a tent collapsed on him in kuwait. they keep bouncing him from place to place, and no hospital will currently take him for treatment because he was hurt on-duty and needs to see an army doc, and the army won't fix it 'cause he's not currently active duty (but without fixing it he won't be called up again - catch 22, oh great) and the VA hospital won't take him for some bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo either, so he's basically screwed. another friend from high school had a major shoulder injury during navy flight training, and she had a hell of a time getting that straightened out - it's still not really fixed, and the injury happened almost two years ago. anyway the handover is meaningless, like the treaties the US used to sign with indians. we agree to let them run their own country, and they agree to pretend we mean it and promise to be good civilized little boys and girls. but to the guy on the street, american troops are keeping the uneasy peace, and the figurehead we say is now in charge wasn't chosen by anyone except the US. the elections might fix that perception, but what do we do if the iraqis decide to elect someone we don't like, like a former saddam buddy or an fundamentalist cleric? that's where the legitimacy of the new govt. will come into question.
  • From The Blue... So when are all the whining Saddam-appeasing pussies going to plant it on the sidelines and shut the fuck up? Wow, we need more of that here.
  • Now that we have diverted attention from the top money making documentary of all time, can I change the channel?
  • From the Wash. Post article: "Some of the orders signed by Bremer, which will remain in effect unless overturned by Iraq's interim government, restrict the power of the interim government and impose U.S.-crafted rules for the country's democratic transition." So what's the problem here?
  • Power.
  • cautionlivefrogs has really been missing us. Welcome back!
  • Thanks.
  • they keep bouncing him from place to place, and no hospital will currently take him for treatment because he was hurt on-duty and needs to see an army doc, and the army won't fix it 'cause he's not currently active duty (but without fixing it he won't be called up again - catch 22, oh great) and the VA hospital won't take him for some bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo either, so he's basically screwed. Why is it the people here are in favor of socialized medicine?
  • Because then the guy would have a place to go and he wouldn't get screwed by your boy's budget cuts?
  • read it again. substitute in Nationalized Health Care for the 'military health system'. where is he going again?
  • Ah, so what you are saying is that because people are apt to cut large chunks out of the budget and mismanage the military health system, that the idea of a Nationalized Heath system is bad. I completely understand now. Pardon me for paying attention to your viewpoint.
  • What shawnJ said...
  • "..to get the attention of and generate controversy for the press and cameras, to make a political point.." I've been thinking about this as a reason for those bills, and it still doesn't wash. In order for this motive to be true, the bills would have to be well known; almost no one has heard of them, and they aren't garnering any attention in the mainstream press. So I still remain skeptical.
  • damn i did miss it here. thanks for the warm fuzzy welcome there wolof.
  • Iraq on verge of implosion. Robert Fisk, in Iraq and quite annoyed. via Juan Cole
  • Er, no offense, but Robert Fisk is fairly often quite annoyed, yes? *beetles off to read article which goddamed Independent online wants a quid or somesuch to read*
  • *beetles off to learn to spell "goddamned"*
  • Because it's cheaper and more efficient, blogRot. I know actual facts aren't as sexy as politicised hyperbole like screaming "socialism", but you may want to try them, some time.