f13.net

hand off halted? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32354-2004May17.html)



Is this important? Does it even matter to bush who he hands off to?
I think not.  I say, look for instant replacement of talking head and no budging on the timeline set out by bush.

So you're saying that you'd rather we sent the message that a bomb can affect the political process of the future Iraqi government, and that terror is an effective tool to sway democratic procedures your way?

Gee, how Spanish of you.

The IGC is not the organization that will be the legal government of Iraq after June 30.  The caretaker government that will be nominally in charge hasn't been named yet.

Am I the only person that this worries? This is like having a kid that's going to be adopted by a certain date but you don't know who the "parent" is going to be.

"Say, want a country? I've got one here, what's your name? Muhammed? Perfect!"

The timeline was (effectively) set by the French.

And offcially agreed by the UN.

The US government didn't actually want to set one at the time. The intention was for an Iraqi government to emerge (as, to be fair, usually happens in these circumstances).

EDIT: and anyway - all serious suggestions for an iraqi government have included a joint-presidency shared by at least 3 people. So I don't see what difference this makes.

Uh.  What?  As far as I know the June 30 date was set by the US after their original "regional caucus" plan was rejected by Ayatollah Sistani and the US asked the UN to intercede and negotiate a compromise.  The whole "handover to caretaker government on June 30 who will then work towards free elections as soon as possible" was proposed by Lakhdar Brahimi, championed by Kofi Annan, and accepted by the US.  What did France have to do with it?

I love that even a year after the invasion was officially over, we still don't have a clear picture of who the fuck is supposed to assume power prior to an actual election. Shit, you could probably kill every male in the country and it wouldn't affect the handover because we have no idea who the power is being handed to. Random_camel_salesman_08 seems to be the front runner.

That's what is meant by having "no clear exit strategy."

Just don't call it a quagmire, or the host of mouthbreathing neocons will rush in and call you a hippie or a commie.

No, I want to send the message that the guy we are putting in charge isn't just some western puppet. I want to send the message that he is a representative of Iraq, and is uniquely suited to the job.
I know you don't want to hear this BG, but the more like Them the guy is, the sooner the insurgents will realize that there are other ways of doing things, nice peaceful democratic ways.  The more he stands as a unique individual the more they will think he will stand with them. Yes, he will be Muslim (please BG for the love of all that is good, don't start on that whole Islam is fucked thing). Finally, if he has any sense at all, he will pick a fight immediately and place himself staunchly against the US.  we don't need a repressive government in Iraq to trample on the insurgents (even if we are really good at it) we need a government that makes the people believe, as we do, that change can and will come through the democratic process. (I used the inclusive we there, I assume you aren't actually a militaristic fascist)

You assume too much.

Perhaps there is more going on than is readily apparent through the media? Perhaps they don't want people involved in forming the caretaker government getting blown up as well?

If I thought Bush was capable of that kind of thought I might buy it. Powell yes, Bush no. He's as much as said "uhhh....heh....well...uhhhh...we...uh....don't....uh...know...who...uhhh...will take...uhhh...over..."

Sorry if that was painful to read it was the best I could do to copy his speaking style. My current guess is that June 30 will pass with no change in power. Really, it's too early, things aren't stable enough. If he'd just SAY SO I'd be alot happier.

Um...What excatly is this going to do?

The US will still contorl all militry and police past June 30th.

The US will still control the budget.

The US will still control all forign affiars.

Practicly nothing will change, though I predict Bushco will look at his falling ratings, declare VICTORY and pull out before Novemeber.

Sometime before November, Helicorpters will be seen lifting from the roof of hotels in the Green Zone.

Actually you are mostly correct with one major exception. If, and I use that gingerly, we hand off the government it will be up to that government weather we stay there or not any longer. I seriously doubt you will see a nam style exodous any time in the near future. That kind of abject cowardice is why were in this whole crap to start with. The day we bailed on Nam we sent a clear message to the small but large egoed assholes in the world that if you put up any kind of resistance we will 1) NOT do whats required to win for fear of making some of our citizens mad and 2) we will leave .

I think there is absolutely nothing that could possibly happen in Iraq or in the United States to stop the transfer of sovereignty on June 30 - it has become an absolute political necessity to see it through.  As has been repeatedly pointed out, the de facto power in Iraq won't move an inch, and the caretaker government will only be constitutionally authorized to do one thing: organize free elections as soon as possible, probably for the beginning of next year.  Since it's almost purely symbolic, there's nothing to be gained by putting it off, whatever the stability situation, and delaying it would just be more fuel on the "the occupation is a failure" fire.

I suppose when you put it that way Alrindel I can see it happening. You're saying it'll just be a figurehead government while we still control things. Sounds workable.

I don't think it's so much a figurehead goverment as it is a baby one.  We are going to stay there ostensibly to help them organize elections and hopefully get police and military forces trained.  Hopefully soon, we will be able to start pulling out military forces a bit at a time, leaving civilians there to continue to help rebuild the country's infrastructure.  We probably won't be completely out for a good while yet, but the goal of a (relatively, for that part of the world) stable, democratic goverment to Iraq is certainly worth the time.

I thought this article in Time (http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101040524/wstrategy.html) is a good summary of the issues in play around the handover.  The interim government will be more than simply a figurehead, even if the scope of their authority will be limited.  The most important aspect of it is that it's politically backed by Kofi Annan and the UN, not by the occupying forces.  The whole world has an interest in doing everything they can to make it succeed, because if it collapses (or is toppled by insurgents), Iraq is screwed and there's no plan B.

The June 30th date was already in place at that time - the caucus plan was suggested as the only possible way to elect anything by June 30th. The UN and US convinced Sistani of this in the meeting you refer to. The ocmpromise was to aim for elections by year end because sistani didn't like the caucuses.

The date itself was put up much earlier when the French and others were demanding a date for the handover in return for UN approval of the arrangements in Iraq post invasion. The French originally wanted an earlier date, which allowed the US to "come up with 30th June all on it's own" and everyone agreed. The whole excercise was yet another example of the French being a fuckload better at negotiation than anyone else.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3105382.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3267723.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3268527.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3279831.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3423193.stm

Because that is all they will ever do.