US ‘to appoint Iraqi leadership’
Is this a good idea? Does any SDBM agree with this change of plans? Should the new Iraqi leadership be appointed by the USA or should a “national conference of Iraqi groups” elect there own Interm Government? What are the pros/cons of each choice?
I like the first idea better since it is an Iraqi choice of who should be in the administration.
What a surprise. How long now until a Governor General is appointed?
Actually, it IS a good idea.
The Bush administration can’t win with its critics. When they first started planning to turn over power to Iraqis quickly, the left criticised them for preparing to abandon Iraq. Now that they have changed course and are planning for a longer control, they’ll be criticised for colonialism.
I’ve said all along that the U.S. needs to maintain firm control over Iraq until A) there is peace and stability, B) Liberal institutions are in place (judiciary, constitution, legislative procedures, administrative offices, etc), and C) That the people trust that the new government will be fair.
Only then should the U.S. relinquish power back to an Iraqi government. Doing it too early will lead to more instability and fighting between ethnic and religious groups who do not trust each other with power.
But **Sam ** this is what leftys are afraid of, the states controlling Iraq through a puppet regieme (or whatever). Isn’t it better to have a Iraqi choosen leadership. Isn’t Democracy what the Right wingers were saying the reason for toppling Sadam.
Is this more like the best interests for the Iraqi people or the American Government? Whoose interests should be at the top?
Please forgive my spelling.
I’m not going to ask you for a cite, because it’s difficult to “prove” general feelings and tones. However, I strongly suspect this sentiment of yours is a strawman. “Turning over power” does not equate to abandonment. “Turning over power and then getting the hell out of Dodge with nary a glance in the rear view mirror” WOULD be abandonment. But what about the middle ground? Turning over power and sticking around until, in your words,
**
No, freedom was the objective. That, and getting rid of a very bad actor in a very dangerous and important place.
Democracy is not just voting. Fareed Zakaria has written eloquently on this topic. What we in the west mean when we say “democracy” is liberal democracy, which is a lot more than just having one vote, once. It means a whole collection of institutions that respect human rights, adjudicate disputes fairly, have procedures for appeals and redressing of grievances, etc.
The question is, what should come first? The institutions of democracy, or the vote? Zakaria’s argument is that having the vote before the institutions are in place leads to instability and the election of strongmen or other extreme figures.
For example, do the Shiites in Iraq believe that they would get a fair shake in a new government controlled by Sunnis? Or vice versa? If not, then holding an election right now could be very dangerous. If a Shiite majority is elected (a likely outcome, given their 60% majority in the country), would the Kurds and Sunnis accept that? Or would they begin to work against the new government?
Get the laws in place first. Build a democracy from the ground up. Then, when the country is ready, have a vote. That process could take years.
What bothers me the most is that the new ruler appointed by the US will be selected by a FOX TV reality show
Sam The problems you bring up is dealt with by forming an intern Government by the Iraqi national conference of groups. That is the only way to deal with Iraqi problems, openly with a discussion among these groups of Iraqis. Whoever they come up with to lead the administration would be chosen by these Iraqis from across the country. Not by the US government.
I will ask this straight Sam. Do you think Iraqis should have the right to choose their leaders in this Administration?
The US just said that they might not let the conference of Iraqis have this choice, that instead they’ll hand pick the new Iraqi admin. If you think this is the right choice…
Do you beleive the US government is acting in the best interests of Iraqis. Or are they just finding a way to put up a US friendly government, in direct confilct with having an Iraqi choosen one.
I hate to agree with Sam too often, it’s a bad precedent, however his overall points are correct. The early reports under Garner of a rush to create an Iraqi administration and talk of troop reductions was premature and foolish.
I am not sure this particular approach is correct – if our new man on the ground (whose background I am far more pleased with, aside Sam, see, Garner was not the right fellow) can manage this well, then I say good.
The key is to maintain scrupulous neutrality even in regards to players the Administration does not like. At the moment this appears to be the case, appears I stress. If the appointed council is good quality and broad based, the move may be good. If it looks like Chalabi and cronies, then it will be bad. This sort of move really depends on the execution.
BTW Sam, I do disagree with your initial char. of criticism. Perhaps the Left with a capital L was engaged in such, but there are and were other voices that warned against the initial pattern. Hardly left at all. And given the rather sad example of the Afghan engagement to date, well advised.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that the only criticism came from the left. There was plenty to go around.
And I’ll have to give you the Garner thing. You’re right - he was a bad choice. It was naive of him to think that he was going to walk in, get some lights on, and then turn the place over to an infant government and go home. Bremer seems to be much more realistic. I view Garner’s replacement as a very good sign, not just because he was the wrong guy, but because it shows that the government is serious about doing it right. They may still screw it up, but I don’t think they’re going to jump ship. They’re going to at least try to do the best job they can.
Yeah Sam, I like Bremer. He’s got all the skills and no-nonesense to boot. I like his presence too – the suit and formality are things that go down well in the region. Shows you’re worthy of respect.
Geting the image right here is very important, very important. I wear a suit every damn day - have to keep in mind my monthly salary is orders of magnitude more than the yearly PCI and my folks have to feel I am respecting my own position. Dressing down is just not done here, not at all. You dress to impress in the Middle East, in a strange way that shows mutual respect.
Bremer has got the right things rolling now, but unfortunately the hurdles now are worse. Lots more distrust, rising hostility to occupation, frustration…
Among the issues, however, I believe is the Admin internal incoher. on political situ. in Iraq. This needs to be better. Hopefull Bremer can convince the idjits to shut their yaps and let him do the work.
It doesn’t matter so much what government runs Iraq in the near term. What matters is a few years down the road. We can get away with appointing a puppet as long as we hold elections in a reasonable amount of time. Start locally, then build up to federal elections after a couple of years.
The interventions of the unlearned, wonderful.
No it matters deeply. In such conditions early patterns tend to set up future conditions.
Further to get to the future, you can not abstract away from the present. Present errors generate opposition, opposition in such circumstances tends to run violent, violence generates violance.
We’re already seeing disturbing trends including signs of emerging Sunni generalized hostility to the US, with the Shiites not so favorably disposed either.
Bremer has a balancing act to get this right. And getting it right is key, else we have truck bombs in the spring.
No, one does not get away with appointing a puppet, appointing an advisory council with some independence and arms length is a good idea. Apppointing puppets buys bad will, of which the US already has plenty.
Nor can national elections be delayed years. Ideally that would be done if there was on the ground legit. for the US presence, but there is not. So, while the full effective transition is likely to take years, national elections are likely to be held within a year or so, if only to elect an initial authority and help construct some legitimacy.
Okay, I see your point.
I would further add though that holding elections to soon could also be counterproductive. You don’t want a “one man, one vote, one time.” deal where the losing side loses everything and the winning side becomes a tyrant. That’s not much better than what they had before.
I am deeply aware of the risks of too early a vote – it will not yet be of the risk you suggest, but too early a vote may get the wrong characters in or a shaky admin that leads to what you suggest.
The challenges are non-trivial.
Never, of course. We don’t have Governor Generals.
Why does the BBC feel it can turn “may appoint” into “to appoint”?