A big “if”, first of all, is hypothesizing that a stable new government actually does take hold after June 30, and does manage to actually govern the country. Just imagine this works, for the purpose of argument.
You’re thinking, Of course they won’t kick out the American troops, duh. They’re being put in place in order to keep the American troops in Iraq.
OK, but just suppose. What do you think would happen if the new Iraqi government said it didn’t want any more American occupation and the soldiers had to leave? Would America comply?
You might as well ask what would happen if the entire Muslim world would decide to convert to Christianity overnight because the chances of both things are about the same.
A puppet governmet installed by the USA has zero chances of remaining in power without US backing so what are the chances the puppet government deciding to commit mass suicide?
Furthermore, the “transfer” is a mere formality with close to no real transfer of power. The USA retains control of all armed forces so the “Iraqi government” does not have power or jurisdiction to decide anything with respect to the armed forces. The USA reatins so much control over the armed forces and the economy that this “transfer” is just a cruel joke designed to fool those who only read the headlines. It is a move only designed to gain support from Americans at home.
A more telling point would be what would happen if Iraq wanted to re-nationalise its oil infrastructure, thus appropriating everything bought or repaired by Haliburton et al.. When Egypt effectively did this to the UK and France over the Suez Canal, the US pretty much told them to suck it up. I wonder whether the US would now follow the advice it gave then.
Well the USA can always say they need time to withdraw. (true)
That safety concerns for international “coalition” means they will have to stay longer (true too).
After a month if the new govt. hasn’t invited them to stay longer… or hasn’t been doing what the US wants them too they would say the security situation demands the continuous presence of US troops and they would stay without Iraqi consent.
There is a chance that Bush would take the opportunity to wash his hands and in defacto leave… and I wouldn’t blame him for this. Easy way out.
I wonder how many Americans believe that the “handover of sovereignty” date has some real significance? I hear people talking as if the handover date was the date that American troops began to withdraw, just in time to make it home for the Support Our President and Re-Elect Our Heroic Troops Rally.
Without control of the military, there is no “sovereignty”. The Iraqi Council of Supreme Governance (Provisional) will have the power to declare Gosh, We Sure Do Love Those Americans Day. They will also, I suspect, have the authority to make decisions regarding the most efficient and profitable use of Iraq’s oil resources, a decision we might well expect to be mindful of Iraq’s fulsome gratitude towards her benefactors.
As well, there is no “democracy” even contemplated: there is no chance, none whatsoever, that the Iraqi people will be permitted the power to make a mistake. It is “soveriegnty” without power, “democracy” without choice. It is, to borrow the phrase, a “bright shining lie”.
I confess that I keep, foolishly, being surprised when the administration lowers the bar for what constitutes “handover of sovereignty.” I’d been wondering how such a handover could possibly work in the current situation there; as near as I can tell, it can work only by being a complete facade.
Is there ANYTHING legitimate about the handover? Will the new “government” (I use those quote marks advisedly) have any real power? Seriously.
It also depends on when such an event would occur.
If Bush had believed that we heroic Americans could come in and install a representative democracy upon a grateful previously enslaved populus to their never ending loyalty to our interests … well then he was obviously deluded. To reference his own religious mindset he would merely need to look at the forty years the Isrealites needed to travel throught the desert before being ready for a promised land. At some point, some US administration is going to become aware that it needs a face saving way out and let another strong man impose order, hoping that we can find other ways to inculcate the human rights and democratic reforms (along with a bias to US interests) into the Arab world. Or to be prepared to deal with more of the same for several decades.
In short, if we can get the UN to take care of our mess, and we are then asked to leave in a few years, we may be willing to declare victory and go home licking our wounds, and let the UN allow another oppressive regieme to emerge so that we can blame them for mishandling it from there.
It’s a fact on the public record that there are close, nay intimate intellectual and ideological ties between the neo-cons and the Likud party. I believe it’s even germinated a phrase “Likudnik neo-cons.”
Sure it’s a fact that makes people uncomfortable but what of that?
Secondly, it is by now increasingly clear that a major concern precipitating the invasion was the security of Israel. Similarly, an inflexible aspect of continuing US control of Iraq will be ensuring it is unable to restore to a state of hostility to that country. The opening question could equally ask: “What if the Iraqis determine to pursue policies hostile to Israel & the US”? In fact I recall Juan Cole may have posed this very question.
Accordingly the observation is valid. That it is uncomfortable is irrelevant.
Actually I think it is going to come down to whatever “Iraqi” “government” we handover “sovereignty” will have the old “Responsibility without Authority” song & dance.
Average Iraqi: “The electrical power has not been working since July 2.” Paul Bremer: “It’s not MY fault, The Ministry of Electricity is in charge of making sure you have electricity to run your air conditioning in this unusually warm August”
Average Iraqi: “Officers, officers, they’re looting the Food King!” Bush: “We are training the Iraqi Army to provide security for Iraq, but the two platoons that have actually completed training are guarding the oil wells, that are the property of the Iraqi people”
Average Iraqi: “We just found a large new oil field” Cheney: “We wants it, preciousss. It’s ourss, all for ourselffss”
What do you mean by “intellectual ties”? A neo-con foreign policy could certainly have the effect of helping Israel, but then again the Iraq war has caused an increase in Arab anti-Israeli sentiment so I wouldn’t be too sure that Israel is better off with it.
Prove it.
Here’s something to think about, though: If this is all helping the Likud party and their agenda, then why is Sharon actually pulling out of the territories?
Well, yeah, but again that would be the effect of establishing a government that would be friendly to U.S. interests.
Anyway, the fact that neo-con foreign policy may favor Israel does not prove that the two groups have the same goals in mind. And then, even if their goals did coincide, that still does not prove that the Likud party is dictating American foreign policy.
No, it’s baseless.
It’s true that debate should concern facts, not emotions. However, seeing as how you did not prove your assertion–which was ludicrous, to say the least–I do not think that Rune’s comment was in any way inappropriate. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. (And I’m sure you’re aware that such allegations have been trumpeted by certain hate groups so it’s not at all surprising that people will have an emotional response to them.)
Sadly, the only reply that attempts to give ( a link to) the US governments response doesn’t work for me.
IMO, You would have to get out unless you didn’t give a shit about what the International Community thought of you.
Which, IMO, you don’t, now that you haven’t got the Ruskies to stand up to you.
How true. I fear you have fallen into the same error as Rune, namely hyperbole.
There’s a large gap between influencing and dictating. Exactly where the current Likud/Neo-con/Evangelical axis falls between those 2 is a matter of interesting debate.
To me, that sounds like you’re saying that Israel is controlling U.S. policy since any plan would be contingent on Israeli opinion.
Sure, but, as I’ve said, you have to first prove that their goals coincide. Then you have to prove that the partnership is not mutually beneficial. And then you have to prove that Israel is controlling the U.S. and not the other way around. Which you have not.
Meanwhile, it seems that there is some evidence to the contrary.
Again, prove it. But since this is only a few months away I’m sure we’ll all get to see for ourselves.
