http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/8821031.htm
So, what’s the Dope on this Allawi fellow? How sovereign will the government be, when it is being led by handpicked people under an American occupation? I don’t think anybody (Iraqis least of all, who view the IGC as puppets) is really surprised by such a blatant abuse of the “turnover” of power, but what will come of this?
[url=]Link
Well, that’s certainly kinda sorta like an endorsement.
Hmmm…In other words, Paul Bremer and the ayatollahs decide about everything in Irak instead of Bremer alone. I’m not sure if it should be considered as an improvment…
(Actually, I believe it’s better this way…But I just couldn’t help myself : I had to point out the irony of the situation)
Well, at least they are kinda sorta making concessions a little bit now.
I don’t know how “he didn’t make any comments about Allawi’s name on a list of a bunch of people” translates to “approved by,” though. They could have put him in the middle of the list among a bunch of horrible choices.
Here is what the BBC has to say about Allawi:
Sounds like dry chicken. Government man with high connections, moderate on almost everything. Not enough to really piss anyone off, but not enough to be a strong leader - which is, I think, exactly what we were looking for (ie, someone who wouldn’t get a mass following and become another Saddam).
Oops, link for above:
This Allawi guy has spent the last 30 years in exile. His credibility with the Iraqi people going to be pretty much nil. He’ll be the Bremer’s mouthpeace until the insurgents nail him.
Who knows how good this guy is going to be, but he seems like a half-way decent choice. I was looking for the quote from, I think, Brahimi but I couldn’t find it. He (or someone else) said it very well, and I’ll paraphrase: “It’s not ideal, and maybe even not all that good. But you have to take a step toward democracy, and this might be the best that can be done at this point.” Given that elections won’t be held for several more months, does anyone criticizing this have a better suggestion?
IIRC, he’s one of Chalabi’s cousins.
Don’t quote me on that one though.
He and Chalabi are related by marriage, but are apparently not particularly close. They ran rival exile groups ( INA vs. INC ) and were to some extent backed by different factions of the U.S. government. Allawi was much more a CIA and State Department contact, whereas Chalabi was in recent years associated more with the DoD.
The one clear thing here is that Brahimi wound up with little say in ‘his’ choices; he was outmaneuvered by the IGC and possibly by factions of the US government. (There’s enough infighting going on that it’s hard to tell for sure there.) So the whole Bush story since mid-April that Brahimi would be choosing the caretaker government is right out the window.
Sistani’s endorsement of the caretaker government is just barely that - it’s got a series of conditions attached to it:
Any leadership that the bulk of Iraqis would accept as legitimate will do, especially now, right? I don’t see any good reason to think any of these gentlemen will be able to achieve that, but I’d love to be surprised.
What kind of “sovereignty” is it that does not even include the right to make or revoke laws? Who is actually going to be fooled by that?
Hm, CIA vs DoD… what choices the Iraqi people have now!
Anyway, it seems like this guy is mild enough to be accepted by most everyone. Maybe that will calm things down, as long as the gov’t is accepted.
The picks look pretty shrewd to me. The new President was chosen from the largest tribe in the region - one which has major influence in the most troublesome areas and even into neighboring countries. The new Prime Minister looks like a serious guy, and made a lot of critical noises against the U.S. in order to distance himself from the CPA - something that was important to do. The other day he gave a speech thanking the coalition for liberating the country, and saying that it was important for coalition forces to remain to help maintain stability. At the same time, he demanded full sovereignity for Iraq, including the right to kick out the coalition troops if the Iraqis so choose after they elect a government. I think that was exactly the fine line he needed to walk.
And Sistani’s endorsement (mild though it was) should help calm down the Shiite regions and further marginalize al-Sadr, who seems to be wholly in retreat now.
The new interim government also looks to have about the right mix of regional representation - several women, Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites… Not a bad setup.
There are still plenty of obstacles ahead, but this was a pretty good week for Iraq.
Does “sovereignty” mean the new government can kick out Halliburton and reclaim control over the oilfields and their revenues?
“Sovereignty” doesn’t even mean they’ll get to make or revoke laws without Negroponte’s OK. You remember Negroponte, don’t you?
Now he’s replacing Bremer as Viceroy of Iraq.
This “local government” will owe its existence and its lives to the continuation of the American occupation. No way will they buck it.
How ironic that the Iraqi election hinges on who disses America more vehemently.
Ah, so asking for sovereignity is ‘dissing America vehemently’, huh?
Things are looking much better in Iraq. Has everyone been following the news? To recap the events of the last two weeks:
[ul]
[li]al-Sadr has backed down. He has withdrawn most of what’s left of his militia, after other religious leaders came out in opposition of his behaviour. They put the blame for the fighting squarely on his shoulders, including blame for damage to the Mosques.[/li][li]The governing council chose a new government, and immediately disbanded. The new government appears to be carefully thought out, has started off well, and has good regional representation. This also answers the question, “Who is the U.S. going to turn power over to on June 30?” Now we know.[/li][li]Nine militias in Iraq have disbanded, including major militias from every faction - Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis. 60% of the members will join the military under command of the national armed forces of Iraq, and the other 40% are going back to private life. That much-feared civil war is looking a lot less likely now.[/li][li]It appears that a U.N. resolution will pass tomorrow which all sides are happy with: The Iraqis, the U.S., France, Germany, Russia, and Britain. [/li][li]It would appear that Chirac and the rest of the security council is now fully on board in helping to get Iraq on its feet, unless they’re planning to sandbag Bush. [/li][li]It’s been a pretty quiet couple of weeks in Iraq, with fewer incidents of violence than normal. I expect it will get worse again around June 30 and probably again before the election, but right now it seems reasonably calm. (knock wood)[/li][/ul]
All in all, it seems to me that Iraq’s chance at becoming a successful nation and avoiding civil war are better now than they have been since the war started. That doesn’t mean it’s clear sailing - there are a lot of obstacles ahead. But this is progress.
And now there is a unanimous vote in the U.N. in favor of the U.S. resolution:
Comments? Is this a turning point in Iraq?
It is a tad early to tell, eh? I’m sure the Iraqis are on the edge of their seats, too.
We can only hope, Sam. In the long run, and specifically with regard to the November election, it is events that are going to count. If Iraq suddenly becomes quiet, if there are not daily attacks on US troops, if there are not daily mortar raids and car bombings, if civilian contractors are not shot up, kidnaped and intimidated, if the Kurds can be kept from seceding, if the tribes and religious factions to not precipitate civil war, if more Reservists and Guardsmen are not mobilized, if the Iraqi army/police force becomes an agent for civil order and does not desert its function in favor of masked militia, if the Iraqi parliament does not adopt strict Islamic law (15th century version) and declare eternal enmity to all things Western (including our most powerful propaganda tool, Bay Watch), if the flow of oil can be reestablished, if fifty other things happen or don’t happen, then and only then can we say that we have reached a turning point.
The funny thing about turning points is that they are rarely apparent. What is proclaimed a turning point at the time seldom turns out to be the pivot. If the “traditional allies” are willing to give no more than lip service then the Security Council vote is not going to mean much. If we see French and German troops in the streets of Baghdad then it will be clear that something important has happened.
The option that (I think) Senator Symington once proposed to declare victory and get out is still open. Maybe then it will be forgotten that we went into Iraq because we knew that Saddem had heaps of non-conventional weapons and we knew just where they were and we knew that Saddam was about to use them against us, or in the alternative we knew that Saddam was going to give them to his side kick Osama and he was going to sneak up behind us and use them will be forgotten. You get the idea that the American people will forgive almost anything but failure and blow jobs.
We will see.