Opposition leaders were "very respectful" to Mr. Bremer and Mr. Sawers, a participant said, "but I think everyone was also pretty forceful about the need to have full sovereignty for the Iraqis." A question they kept posing, he added, was, "Do you want to run this place, or should we?" ... Today's decision was a disappointment for the former opposition forces and their supporters in the Pentagon and the Congress, where officials had been pressing for an early turnover of sovereign power to a government formed by the opposition groups.
Also of note is that this decision is a victory for Colin Powell's State Department, which has been fighting a not-very-private war of its own with the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. State has _never_ trusted INC head Ahmed Chalabi, who is wanted in Jordan for fraud in connection to the collapse of Petra Bank. State has never liked the idea of turning Iraq quickly over to the fractious opposition, knowing full well it and not the Pentagon ultimately would be the department that would have to clean up whatever messes Chalabi and his cronies would leave. This is second such victory by the State Department recently in this internecine war in the Bush administration. The first was the appointment of Bremer, who, while reporting to Rumsfeld, is a State Department man, having spent 23 years in the diplomatic corps before retiring as a diplomat-at-large for counter-terrorism in 1989. (I hinted at something like this back in February, and while I was outraged then, I have to reluctantly admit that this is probably the best solution at the moment. Security must come first. Only by building the foundations of a civil society can democracy have a hope of withstanding the buffets of the region's politics, and that foundation can't be laid in a country dominated by militias, raping, pillaging and the probable plunder of the nation's treasury by a cabal of corrupt exiles leading an impotent interim government.) It will be interesting to see what the reaction will be from the neocons and other hawks at the Pentagon -- including vice president Dick Cheney -- who supported Chalabi and the Iraqi opposition throughout the 1990s. It will be even more interesting if Bremer can keep the United States' eyes on the ball and still in the game. *Addendum* I'm sure several readers have already pointed this out in the comments -- I haven't read them yet; I will! -- but the obvious and better solution would be to turn Iraq over to the United Nations to be governed as a trust, sort of like Kosovo. This would have the added benefit of encouraging more countries to send peacekeeping troops, something few are doing now. This, however, would require the Bush administration to do the Right Thing, which it has proven remarkably adept at avoiding. And since waiting on the White House to come around to that point of view will lead to a lot of Iraqis being killed as the country falls into chaos, what is the better choice? I'm not advocating Bremer's "Shoot the Looters on Sight" policy, but security, order and basic services must be established first and foremost before a crony-filled, puppet government is established.
Agreed, these are tremulous times for Iraq as a nation and for the Iraqi people, who have yet to taste the benefits of a post-Saddam, pro-america nation. I’m also pleased to see another win for Powell and his Department of State over those hopeless thugs in the Pentagon and DoD.
Chris, as you say, the obvious and better solution would be to turn Iraq over to the United Nations to be governed as a trust. You go on to reject this as being unrealistic because the Bush administration can’t be expected to do the Right Thing.
So you are throwing out what you think is the best idea because you can’t expect the White House to use it. It follows that you accept indefinite occupation because that is what the White House can be expected to do.
You see the problem here? According to your reasoning, whatever the White House decides to do is the best solution, because anything else is unlikely to happen.
How on Earth are you going to have a say in the affairs of your country with that attitude? What kind of a democracy is that? Forget about the puppet government in Iraq; what about the puppet citizenry in the US?
i think i kind of agree with al,it’s necessary to support the right thing, demand the right thing, even though those wielding the power wouldn’t know the right thing if it marched in huge numbers all over the world.
i especially believe it’s important that journalism stick by the right thing, having just viewed tom friedman at nyt, wobbling, again, slightly, from his sort of reluctant cheerleader position.
but then, wobbling is the current american manner, top down, i expect we’ll see a reversal of this policy before summer’s half done, maybe even a denial that such a statement was ever made. democracy is messy, or somethin like that, especially in the bush n co administration.
“puppet citizenry”? I have my say, every four years. There’s an election coming up. Marching in the street won’t change it but voting will.
I refuse to be cannon fodder for your (or anyone else’s, including the President of the United States’) ideals.
“Whatever the White House will do” may not be the best but you both, kim and Al, need to a pragmatic and honest realization that the world is as it is and it is not (nor will it ever be) how it should be.
Sending people out to the streets to have their heads cracked open or to end up in jail is not going to make a dammed bit of difference.
Reminding people that there are brighter bulbs in the tree, however, and urging them to vote for competence, will make a difference.
On the other hand, if you want to run out and be brutalized by the police, this is (after all) the United States. But don’t count on me to interfere — I have a family to feed. You took the risk.
We are taking the correct path in Iraq. For the first time the US has an administration that is willing to take a higher road and not the poplular road in dealing with the Middle East. If more people had better knowledge of the failures of the UN in Kosovo. They would not be so eager to suggest a major roll for the UN in Irqaq.
We are taking the correct path in Iraq. For the first time the US has an administration that is willing to take a higher road and not the poplular road in dealing with the Middle East. If more people had better knowledge of the failures of the UN in Kosovo. They would not be so eager to suggest a major roll for the UN in Irqaq.
We are taking the correct path in Iraq. For the first time the US has an administration that is willing to take a higher road and not the poplular road in dealing with the Middle East. If more people had better knowledge of the failures of the UN in Kosovo. They would not be so eager to suggest a major roll for the UN in Irqaq.
I will believe Iraqis want prosperity over democracy when somebody asks them in an organised, democratic way. Meanwhile, any delay in turning the government of the country over to representatives of the Iraqi people merely confirms those of us who suspected that the entire purpose of this operation was the destruction of national sovereignty.
I will be out on the 24th calling for an immediate end to the occupation.
It astounds me that with the record of United Nations in regards to Iraq, that anyone could seriously suggest UN taking over and running the affairs inside iraq. Just look at the “Oil for Palaces” program just for one good example?? “Hello” ???? Anybody Home?
What countries were the beneficiaries of this program?? I believe it was the same countries that opposed the war to the point of threatening veto. I think the real reasons for all this is now coming to light. And now what countries are opposing lifting sanctions?
Chirs, I believe, is only being realistic in assuming that the US goverment would never allow that to happen as we and the other allies were the only ones willing to put out butts on the line for the cause of Iraq. And that is how it should be. The UN needs a big overhaul, and I have some good ideas in regards to that. As the UN stands now it is ineffective at best, borderline irrelevant, and in my opinion a near laughing stock.
Having the US and the allies looking after Iraq for the interim perioid is the next best solution.
~Deborah
Why would there even have to be a choice between democracy or jobs?
No one said the tranformation period in Iraq would be easy, or would it happen overnight. I’m sure there are as many different ideas of how things should be done as there are people in Iraq. There will have to be hard decisions and compromises made on all fronts. I for one try to be optimistic. It’s way to soon to know how all this will play out in the big picture and the long run. The plan of action may change many times before a real goverment can emerge from the Iraqi people. Flexibility is a positive thing. Why is that being villified? I plan to stay tuned and keep on eye on the situation even though we have no control over the outcome. This doom and gloom attitude around here is sad. I notice that any good that has come out of this conflict it strictly minimized. The negative aspects as maximized. Of course I do have uptmost respect for Chirs’s opinions since he has in fact put himself on the ground in Iraq. But even at that, he was only served one slice of the pie. There is of course many other peices to be looked at carefully.
~Deborah
Let’s see, last I heard, containment policies worked, and Iraq’s military, or lack of, was obviously no match for your American army. If you think that the UN is incapable of such an insurmontable task as to running Iraq temporarily you obviously have NO IDEA of the various track records the UN has in it’s various departments. By sheer logic of comparison, it’ll be a better choice than the US anyday. (Yes, I am talking about Afghanistan here.)
The reason the countries you imply are threatening to veto is simple. Either they are cheese eating surrender monkeys, or America has a) Said there are ‘upwards of 30,000 munitions in Iraq’, and b) Failed to find aforesaid munitions, pissed of her allies in the process, and have whittled hope down to finding a few molecules on a truck. At the SAME TIME, they try to block UN inspectors of re-entering the country to verify that it is indeed WMD-free, the only thing which will clear up the resolution. Strange eh? Who’s preventing who now?
As to putting your butts on the line for the cause of Iraq, what cause would that be? WMD? National Security? Liberation? All of those excuses are the real laughing stock to the rest of the world. Take your pick.
The reason Chris said democracy or jobs, is because the occupiers are not giving either, and jobs are more important. Nobody said the transformation was going to happen overnight, but when:
Unarmed demonstrators exercising their newly-acquired right to free speech get shot because edgy soldiers didn’t know what customs this culture practices, & then have the “impending” investigation NEVER happen,
A family in a van gets shot to pieces at a checkpoint because soldiers don’t know how to say stop, or fire warning shots,
US soldiers are able to somehow secure the Oil Ministry & it’s relevant oil fields, but are not able to secure libraries, museums or the other 50+ ministries from being bombed / looted,
Reporters aiming cameras at tanks get shot at, shelled at, and killed, despite the large print TV and PRESS banners they have,
The only targets Patriot Missiles hit are friendlies, and most casualties on “our” side are caused by friendly fire,
The occupiers have to resort to SHOOTING looters to restore “order”, thereby emulating the very leader they deposed,
When “victory” has been declared, but hospitals only get to work with syringes, dirty gauze, blood-soaked utensils & no anesthetic / antibiotics,
When electricity is out and a cholera outbreak in Basra, predicted for WEEKS, is allowed to happen,
Something just smacks of Jebus-farking INCOMPETENCE. Wake up and smell the charred bodies. You say flexibility is a good thing. Tell that to the family of 13-year old Ahmad Khader, who tagged along the Fallujah protest & was shot at, and died. Tell that to the man in Hilla who had to pick up the pieces of his baby, blown apart by cluster bomb sharpnel, while everyday the occupiers deliberate on what to do next. The good that can come out of this is strictly minimized, because this DIDN’T HAVE TO HAPPEN. They could’ve spent more than the 3 weeks planning for the war. Either a) The war planners had NO intention to rebuild Iraq, or b) They had just enough planning to get the oil through, or c) Again, they are just plain incompetent. Which is it? I’ll let you pick that one.
Did I mention the suspected WMD sites which were looted?
Deborah,
What about legitimacy? What about the fact that this looks more and more to the world and to many Iraqis as an occupation, one that has wrecked the Iraqi standard of living and killed many of their people?
This idea that the UN is no friend of Iraq because it did not support the invasion and administered sanctions, while the US is a kind of idealistic hero nation is ridiculous and ignores even very recent history. The US supported Saddam at his worst, even while he killed his own people at Halabja. The US fought Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait and killed tens of thousands of Iraqis. The US encouraged an uprising against Saddam and then failed to support it – when do you think so many of those mass graves date from? It then followed this up with a program of sanctions that it led through the UN which killed hundreds of thousands more and strengthened Saddam’s grip on the country. Recently the US invaded Iraq without provocation and without legal justification and killed thousands more Iraqis. They have since failed to keep basic law and order in Baghdad (where murder rates have gone up 60% over the past few weeks), allowed much of the country and its heritage to be trashed, taken control of the Iraqi oil industry (for the good of the Iraqi people, of course…) and are now putting off Iraqi self-rule indefinitely. And we wonder why the Iraqis don’t love us?
Don’t misunderstand me. I think we had to drive Saddam’s forces out of Kuwait – and I’m glad he’s gone (although I wish he were dead or in captivity, rather than at large with $1billion US). But Saddam is gone — his regime was cruel and his departure is good, but will it continue to be enough good? Already, many Iraqis are saying that life was better under Saddam – which, in cold, hard material terms it was for many of them, provided they did not oppose the regime. That perception can change as law and order and basic services and supplies are restored and hopefully it will; but in the meantime, Shia forces are organizing on the ground, literally cleaning up the streets by taking care of law and order and waste disposal. And so the real re-organization and restoration of basic order and infrastructure is coming not from us, but from a powerful majority group who cannot wait for us to leave. If we delay too long, they may begin taking actions of their own, and we simply cannot afford to fight the Shia nation if they should rise against us. Not only would the costs in lives and treasure be too terrible to bear, we would then truly need to be an occupying, imperial power – something few Americans want.
“Legitimacy” is not just something for the French and Germans to carp about – it is what is felt by the Iraqis. Neither the US nor the UN has a shining bright history with the people of Iraq, but having a truly multinational, experienced peace-keeping force on the ground with a lot of Arabic speakers would be one thing that might make people in Iraq feel less like this was just another colonial occupation. I think it would be entirely appropriate to keep a strong American presence as part of that force (we broke it, so we should be involved in fixing it) but the resentment that is building now is in large part because we’ve gone it alone and have made sure it stayed that way. Instead of spreading responsibility for the project of re-building Iraq among many allies, we’ve now taken full responsibility for its success or failure – right now, that really doesn’t look like the best position to be in. Not only does it risk us being vilified across the world if we fail, it actually makes it more likely that we will, as we’ve given every Iraqi with a grievance a very clear idea of who to blame, and when the anger becomes too much, they will know whose armed forces and facilities in their country to attack.
For the record, I think that Chris is right: launching full-scale into national elections and then pulling out would probably be disastrous and we would bear full responsibility for that disaster. I would favor holding local elections as soon as possible so that people can get a taste of what democracy is and parties can begin to form. I salute Major General David Petraeus for doing just this in Mosul. But we need a multi-national coalition to have any hope of legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis and we need to have a time frame, a deadline by which we will have accomplished our goals, so that it does not appear that we truly wish to be a colonial army of occupation. Indefinite postponement of self-rule is no more acceptable than indefinite detention of suspects.
I don’t think Chris is throwing out his ideals by saying that the White House made a good choice. Good is relative, after all, and when you’re consistently making bad choices, even the most mediocre choice is “great.” That goes hand-in-hand with his thoughts regarding his personal ideals — believing they’re currently doing a good job doesn’t pre-empt his right to believe something even better can be done.
In any case, I think setting the country of Iraq up to be peaceful before it is a democracy can only help when the time to elect leaders comes about. What middle-of-the-roaders would re-elect Bush if we had no national crisis or international warfare or secret terrorist plot to expect? Likewise, who in Iraq would elect a brutal warlord if security were handled effectively and general needs were met?
And, especially since no foreigners will have a say once this process starts in earnest, the American plan is to set the political environment in Iraq to be as accommodating to the ideal of “democracy” as it can be. The general idea is that far-right warlords far-right religious leaders generally aren’t agreeable with the true ideals of democracy is widely held, even in this country.
This frustrates so many people because everyone is impotent and incompetent when you actually look at it. The UN, the US, the EU, Iraqis, the voters, the politicians, the diplomats, everyone. And, until all agree on some singular plan of action, this will continue to be frustrating.
The UN is a rotting sham. What is happening right now is the best thing. Godspeed to the endeavour.
Amy, I agree. We have seen very clearly that the current WH regime does whatever it bloody well wants to, from the sham election to the sham Supreme Court decision, to hundreds of thousands of people voicing strong opinions before this war and being completely ignored. I believe it is a huge, serendipitous fluke that its current choice, which I believe was made for ignoble and greedy reasons but just HAPPENS to be the best thing to do, is a much better course of action than most WH actions of late.
The UN a sham? I have said it, and others have said it, before: the UN is the sum of its parts - no more and no less. If the largest dues-paying-member, or dues “sometimes paying” member, (which also happens to be the most aggressive world power right now), relegates the UN to the scrap heap when the rest of the members do not do its bidding, what else is the UN supposed to be?