Apparently two days early, the Americans transfered sovereignty to the Iraqi government.
What exactly does this mean? How much longer will the occupation last? Was the transfer of power all just for show?
More importantly, how exactly do you suppose this will affect the constant attacks by Iraqi militants in the country?
What is supposed to happen is the full implementation of the Iraqi Constitution. (The CPA’s own website still says “3 days to go” by the way!)
However, if a country’s people view a constitution as a mere piece of paper with some writing on it, then that’s all it is.
I am particularly intrigued by Article 20:
What happens, then, when an Iranian-style cleric stands for election on a platform of instituting a theocratic government and renationalising the oil infrastructure? If he is barred from the elections and his supporters protest, is the crowd to be fired on with live rounds?
I’m guessing that Bremer didn’t want to miss the premiere of “Spider-Man 2.”
I’d imagine that this might be designed to keep terrorists like Zarqawi a little more off balance than they would be otherwise. A self-governing and free Iraq is not want these people see for the future of Iraqi’s. Recall that Zarqawi has just threatened to behead the new Iraqi Prime Minister in this effort. Note also the increased number of videoed beheadings and the verosity of the attacks as June 30 approached. This is consistant with Zarqawi’s plans, as outlined in his letter, to use violence as a means to direct the future of Iraq — and the approach of the ‘zero hour.’
Link to the “Zarqawi Letter” –
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/l…-al-zarqawi.htm
Now it’s MILLER TIME.
In the interests of providing a link to the Zarqawi Letter that works — I’ll provide this one.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2004/02/040212-al-zarqawi.htm
And this portion of his letter regarding ‘timing’ and the ‘race’ against that concept —
As other posters have noted, it makes sense not to give the insurgents a cerimonial reason to increase attacks. Good idea to do this “ahead of schedule”.
It means that Iraqis (and not Americans) take over all governmental functions and that the US has no official veto power. We still have more than a few troops there, though, so it’ll be a struggle as to who decides what those troops do. I doubt the US will give the Iraqis much, if any, authority of the troops. And I’d expect a significant level of US troops to be in Iraq for 5 - 10 yrs. It’s going to take a long time for Iraqization of the military and domestic security forces.
I don’t think the transfer was just for show. This is still a transitional government as the first elections don’t take place for another 6 months. Up til now, the US has had veto power over the decisions of the governing council. This no longer is true, although the US will certainly have quite a bit of influence.
I suspect they’ll increase and that the Iraqi governmnet will declare martial law, at least in certain areas of the country where the attacks are most common.
I second what John Mace posted and I’ll add a ‘Happy Birthday’ –
This world isn’t ‘fair’ nor is it a place for the weak and unprotected. There will be some who hope this doesn’t work, others who will take an active hand in that objective, and others who will simply ‘spin’ with all their might for political gain - but a Happy Birthday none the less – Too bad you can’t be born full grown!
It only makes sense if the “sovereign” government is too weak to even ensure security at its own inauguration.
This furtive approach isn’t a real good confidence builder.
No, it makes a lot of sense given the reality of the situation. I don’t like the instability in Iraq any more than you do, but it doesn’t do any good to simply offer a criticism w/o a constructive alternative. What would you propose?
From the tactical standpoint, I’m sure it was a good idea. On the other hand, I’m left wondering if they couldn’t have just done it in the dead of night.
As far as terrorist attacks happen, I’m sure they’ll do whatever they were planning to do anyway. They just won’t have the big, public target. How the Iraqis will really govern themselves - how independently of America, how democraticlly - I don’t know.
I don’t think it means much.
Frankly, the new government is made up of pretty much the same people we installed. in the IGC. The main difference is that they don’t have Bremmer to answer to. Just Bush. The Iraqis I’ve heard from view them all as puppets, and aren’t terribly moved.
It won’t stop the attacks any. The protest of the attacks is against the US military presence as occupiers. Until we leave, they’ll be pissed and continue to blow shit up.
Huh??? Are you saying that if our troops packed up and left today that the attacks would stop? I don’t think so…
No, but they would decrease.
I don’t believe it. The attacks have killed mostly Iraqis and now they’re holding three Muslim Turks and a Lebanese-American Muslim Marine hostage. They’re not fighting for freedom for Iraq, they’re fighting for spoils at this point.
No doubt - the terrorists will not miss out on already planned opportunities to behead and disseminate videoed beheadings, kill Iraqi police and recruits, kill Iraqi government officials, or even conduct the relatively staid but effective car bomb murders. To take more innocent life, in the most public way, ----- well, that’s their job. Yet, the unpublished government entrance is designed to remove a stage they would certainly would have used, and desired, for the exhibition of this slaughter.
Please Zagadka - you really don’t mean what you just said. You meant to say “increase” - right? Not “decrease.” If you meant “decrease” by would logic do you think that?
To say that the terrorists don’t want a free government in Iraq is true – but they’re not ready to throw in the bloody tooth and claw just yet - If the protection that holds it all together pulled out today on this new and forming government - the jackals would surely be on her like the fresh meat of a baby. It’d all be over in days —
I don’t think anything’s really changed, although the Turkish thing was pretty opportune given that Bush was about to visit there at the time. They don’t want freedom for Iraq, although they’d love the US out since there would be less security. They’re trying to scare people and make them angry at America for not protecting them.
This just in…
According to what I’m hearing on CNN (no link posted as yet), by a two to one margin (62% to 30%), Americans regard the handover as reflecting failure on the part of the administration’s Iraq policy…
No doubt this will change as soon as the pictures of the thousands of glad Iraqis dancing happily in the streets with thier “Gosh! Do we ever love George Bush!” placards are broadcast. Any second now.
Oh, you would still have your Sunni and Kurd rebels. The Shi’a would calom down pretty quick.
Of course, this is all assuming that we had done jack shit to develop an Iraq military. Gee, wonder how that got left behind…