f13.net

If you saw it last night, then I expect you had some reaction to it. I sort of absorbed it while playing NWN, but I picked up on his 5 step plan and the idea of giving back Iraq to the Iraqis. While it was a rehash of most of his points, I did get the idea that he is still pushing the June 30 deadline and that he is now really going to have to make that stick. He's written the checks now a month ahead of time, and if they bounce it means trouble for his election.

Overall, I thought the speech was good, and in some places very true to the American ideal. I think he came off much better in the eyes of the people when talking about giving freedom back and his plans to have a friend in a free Iraq. I also think he coupled it well with the idea that things won't be easy. I like that realism from a President even in the months before an election.

I did notice the one glaring error in the speech when trying to name the Iraqi prison, which has already made a soundbyte on shows this morning. So feel free to ram Bush for bumbling Arabic names.

Meh, I'm a pretty good public speaker  but I won't rail on anyone for tripping over a vowelcentric language like hebrew or arabic.

I didn't see the speech last night. To be honest I typically don't watch a President's speeches I try to find a transcript of it the next morning and read it. I saw the 5 points in the paper and they seemed to be fairly realistic. I liked that he said he was going to demolish that prison. I'm not so sure that building a new prison there is a good idea given the history of the current one.

Overall we'll see what happens June 30. My guess is the insurgents will step up their attacks when we get close to the deadline.

What I think the speech did well was to try to spell out for everyone that the handover is going to go through, come hell or high water, and that continued attacks in Iraq should be considered to be aimed square at Iraqi citizens and other Muslims.

It's a fairly good plan, it puts terrorists in the bind of losing popularity throughout the Islamic world by appearing to prey on other Muslims.

Not that most of thier attacks kill far more Muslim citizens than American ones or anything cause that would be bad and whatnot.

What I saw of it (about the first fifteen minutes), I thought it was a typical cowboy politico circle jerk. We're only figuring out THIS WEEK who the actual people in those positions he named will be? 1 month from the deadline? How is that possible? Shouldn't those names have been tossed in a hat and picked out like 6 months ago? Or is not revealing them supposed to be some clever ruse to keep the rulers from being targeted by assassins?

We practically had Karzai inagurated before we were done with hostilities in Afghanistan. A year after "Mission Accomplished" appears and we can't publicly name one candidate for president. That's planning for you.

I didn't realize we had anything to do with naming a president.  My understanding (flawed though it probably is) is that we are appointing an interim council to run things until such time as regular elections are held.  The president will be appointed and elected by Iraqis, not us.

The provisional president, as well as the provisional prime ministers, the guys who will set up the free elections are being determined "AS WE SPEAK" by some UN guy. What I'm saying is the CPA should have had thsoe names not too long after the last shot was fired. Picking those people now just looks like a lack of planning.

I also thought the symbolic destruction of Abu Ghraid (sic) prison is silly. Haven't we blown up or destroyed enough buildings already? Why demolish a perfectly good prison because some shitheads fucked up? Fix the shitheads. The building did nothing.

According to the UN resolution that the US and Britian submitted, Iraq's sovereignty is going to be about as real as Hong Kong's 'one country two systems' thing.

And yeah, saying that he's going to tear down one prison and replace it with... a prison! is teh stupid.  The space should either be a memorial, or some sort of mosque/school/happy place type thing.

The new government is a joke. It doesn't matter who's in it. I could be in it. It's almost purely symbolic as far as I can tell.

Well the guy they had in mind being BLOWN UP tends to put a small chink in that theory guy.

I've been under this crazy impression that since the prison was a site of torture under Saddam's regime, and the site of abuse under our occupation, that it is a symbolic gesture of Iraq's renewal.

I'd wager there were plans to destroy it prior to the abuse reports, but that it became politically prudent to publicize this after the abuse reports surfaced in the US.

I'd liken the need to replace the prison with the need to renovate the library in Columbine high school. You don't do it because it's no longer functional, you do it to strip away a constant reminder of the past....specifically the old regime.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

And now they'll replace him in less than six weeks.  Shit, it takes longer than that to hire a halfway good UNIX admin.

But if they don't, they'll have every liberal and anti-war activist in America claiming that Bush lied about the June 30th transition date and playing cicken little about our eventual withdrawal.

Not to mention that you'd be providing additional credibility to anti-occupation sentiments in Iraq, and that you'd further embolden the terrorists and insurgents with the idea that they can effectively delay or prevent the smooth transition to a new free Iraqi government. Nothing like giving them a taste of success to make them fight even harder.

Like it or not, making the transition of sovereignty on June 30th is now a political must. When the terrorists try to stop that from happening, the administration has to do what our soldiers have been forcred to do for the past year....adapt, improvise, and overcome.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

The turnover is only a political necessity is because Bush made it a political necessity.  He could have just as easily put in place a x year long turn-over plan, and played up the stability/rule of law bit for political points.

June 30th is important because Bush spent the last six months saying it was important.  To complain about political foes jumping all over him if he misses the date is pure chutzpa.

Actually June 30 is important because thats the date agreed to by everyone and to delay it makes us appear to want to rule Iraq. If we miss the deadline 3/4 of the UN will stand and in unison say "See! Look they wanna stay there forever. "

I missed most of it as I left the TV on a network channel and didn't notice that the time had passed.  I found out later that NONE of the network channels carried the speech.  Although, I certainly don't fault anyone for wanting to miss a W speech, I surely think they should have the option.  Evidently, these days you have to subscribe to a newspaper or cable TV to keep up with politics and current events.

What everyone?  Britian?  June 30th was chosen by the administration.  Probably due to its distance from the November elections.

Doesn't matter when you do it....the groups that oppose the formation of the new Iraqi government are going to try and delay it, if not prevent it completely.



It's political significance in this country is minor compared to the psychological impact in Iraq itself. Even delaying the formation of the new government is a win for terrorist and insurgent groups. It would also be a reason for Iraqis and critics worldwide to question our motives, and our intention to let them regain sovereignty....which could even spur the formation of insurgent/terrorist actions within Iraq. Breaking our word would add fuel to the fire....we aren't exactly universally trusted by the Iraqi people.

In the US, it's main significance is that it shows progress in our plan with Iraq, and shows that the President is committed to his plan in Iraq, and that we are moving toward the eventual withdrawal of troops. Mostly, it's just hitting the stated deadline...which removes a world of critcism from the left about sticking to his plan and timeline.

Of course, the critics are as busy as ever....there's really no way to win this politically. In their eyes, either he misses the deadline, or he has acted too quickly and hastily to install the interim government.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

You mean ANOTHER reason, don't you?

Not from this particular member.  Sticking to the June 30th date just so you can stick to the June 30th date is going to work about as well as any other action taken for the sole purpose of meeting an arbitrary date.

Putting it in MMOG terms, this handover is going to look like the Shadowbane, Horizons, and Anarchy Online launches rolled into one.  Except there's no free month, no boobies, and we paid a hell of a lot more for the box.

Please re-read the post, and pay attention to the last paragraph. Politically, Bush is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

At least by going forward, he doesn't affirm the idea that assassinating potential leaders can prevent or delay the installation of a new Iraqi government. They indeed may not be releasing the names to try and avoid another assassination attempt.

I think he realized that he would take heat domestically, regardless of what he did, so he has decided to stick to his word. This is as much a statment of trust and goodwill to the Iraqi people as it is a declaration to the terrorists/insurgents that they will not deter us from achieving our objectives in Iraq.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

It's certainly not a statement of "trust and goodwiill" to the Iraqi people, they see this transistion as being a total sham, much like it is.  This is nothing more than an election year ploy from Bush.

If this were a statement of "trust and goodwill", Bremer wouldn't be working around the clock to install Washington appointed commisions to 5 year terms that oversee every part of the Iraqi government for the forseeable future.  The interim government won't even be able to pass laws, at least according to an ultra liberal rag, the Wall Street Journal (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/occupation/2004/0513usgrip.htm).

Just a couple of examples of what power the US will have in "soveriegn" Iraq:

Yep, saw that.  I just grabbed the quote that worked better with my post.  Of course there are groups out there that are going to rip on Bush no matter what he does.

Just to clarify my point: I would be much happier about the situation in Iraq if Bush had laid out certain environmental conditions to be met before an interim government (at the federal level) was set up.  Something like, we won't turn over the running of the country until there's electricity to 90% of the country, 250k cops, a working military, the justice system is rebuilt, and the school system is functioning at its pre-war level.  These are just examples, the main thing is that we would be handing over a country that would be in good shape, stable and what not.  As it is, the whole country could be on fire on June 30th and we'll still go ahead and turn it over.

I'm not a fan of being in Iraq, I didn't think we should have invaded in the first place.  But now that we're there, we have a responsibility to clean up the mess.

I know that troops are supposedly going to be in Iraq for the forseeable future, but this move to hand over Iraq by a certain date, come hell or high water smells like Vietnamization to me.  Which, sadly, will soon be followed by "Operation Declare Victory and Get Out".

Bush sticking to the June 30 date come hell or high waters makes a sound not unlike a violin playing while Rome burns.

Neocons don't trust democracy in their own country - surely we wouldn't expect more in one of the largest oil producers of the ME... ;)

So we continue to oversee development of army and law enforcement...hardly anything insidious there. We have to leave them in a position where they can maintain order within their own country and defend their sovereignty from aggression.

The interim government will be unable to make or change laws, or make other major decisions without our OK. Go figure that we don't want them doing things like passing laws that oppress religious minorities within the country, or choosing to adopt a wholly different political structure...such as a new de facto dictatorship.

Emergency control by the US is pretty obvious....you don't form a brand new army, and the n immediately order them into combat. Likewise, while we still have troops there, you don't want their military leaders ordering troops out of combat and leaving our guys to twist in the wind.

Seriously, is it just because it's a Republican administration, or do you just assume that all actions taken by the US government are rife with evil intentions?

It's not a binary thing...total control over all phases of government is not simply on or off. The transfer of power back to the Iraqi people is going to be a gradual one. Having some oversight for the next 5 years to ensure that we don't end up opening the door for an even worse regime is just a smart thing to do. We created the power vacuum, we have a responsibility to keep an eye on things until the new Iraqi government is fully stabilized.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

Did you even read the article?  Or because it's a Republican administration do you just apologize for them no matter how evil their intentions?

It doesn't matter what I think about the transfer of power, it matters what the Iraqi People think about the transfer of power.  And when we "transfer power" but maintain control over every aspect of the country including the television stations for the next 5 years we haven't actually "transfered power" and the Iraqi people are going to realize this.  The June 30th deadline is pointless, you claim that Bush is holding to it as a "statment of trust and goodwill" to the Iraqi people, but the Iraqi people won't even have the power to create new laws.  It's hardly a statement of "trust and goodwill" as you claim, it's simply an election year ploy to get some pressure off of Bush.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Um, so what? It's not like he would really hand them the keys and tell them to lock up on his way out. We're trying to instill a radical concept in a region built on different principles, so I think we all know it's a political move. And of the two options, its the best political move he could make. Action beats wait and see.

Um then don't make the claim:



I responded to the absurd and incorrect claim that this is a gesture of goodwill.  This is clearly not, it is a political ploy.  I didn't respond to anything else in this entire thread.  Please quit trying to change my statement into something it's not.

Fair enough, but that's a two way door, hippy scum ;)

I don't think you believe a Republican is capable of good intentions.

I read the article, and I don't see anything to apologize for. There are practical reasons that you don't just hand over the keys, without offering any guidance or oversight in the development of the new government. We will likely be involved with the new Iraqi government in some capacity for the better part of 10 years.



Agreed, but I don't see THEM here bitching at every turn.

Seriously, we stand to lose more credibility by missing or changing the deadline, even if it were to mean less US involvement after the transfer.



As I mentioned previously, there are practical reasons for our continued involvement in those areas. We have a measure of control, not total control....and from the article, it appears that our primary role will be one of oversight and guidance while the fledgling democracy is formed.

When you talk about building a new government, one vastly different from what Iraqis are accustomed to, 5 years seems like a fair estimate to at least achieve some stability. I think it may actually take longer.

You don't just give a kid a bike and say "now ride it, bitch"....you slap some training wheels on the thing. Then you take them off an run alongside the bike until they are stable enough to move forward on their own.

I'm just curious as to what you'd propose as an alternative at this point...especially given that we've already commited to that date.



They can't form new laws without our approval at first. Thus, laws oppressing women or minorities can be quelled, despite having popular support. they also can't radically alter the structure of government, or otherwise change laws to turn someone into a de facto dictator. It's pretty smart, really. Training wheels.

I don't see how the deadline is pointless. We made a commitment, we need to stick to it. This is the first real step for the interim government, the first power they've been afforded. It's not total control, but it's certainly arguable that they are not READY for total control from day 1.



I won't deny that any progress made in Iraq between now and November certainly helps Bush. However, the process has to begin sometime...and we cannot allow terrorists to hinder the process. We've been there over a year. If anything, I think it's PAST DUE. The President is doing something that needs to be done.

I am of the belief that holding to our word is an act of good faith, intended to establish trust with the Iraqi people. I'll even concede that June 30th may have been selected for political reasons.....but you can't undo that. At this point, we have to move forward and stick to our commitment.

What's the alternative?

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

When the transition takes place, the networks will be scrambling for news because there wont be anything to report. We'll cut back our troop numbers, recall the interim managers, and the temporary iraqi council will take over from there.

The earth wont shift on its axis, the sun wont shrink by a third, and Iraq wont sink into a massive sinkhole - it will be the single greatest non-event in the history of non-news.

What crack are you smoking?

...would that be because the transition was smooth, or because it was a farce?

Depsite what Bush and the rest of his administration would like you to think, the Iraqi people ARE NOT CHILDREN.

Training wheels... that's the most condescending shit I think I've ever heard someone say about another populace. My fucking god, there are adults over there, who know a whole fucklot more about their country, culture and customs than we do. Why do we insist on treating them as if they cannot determine their own fate? Isn't that what democracy is?

It's that kind of patronizing shit that the Arab world objects to. It's holier than thou self-righteousness and it hinders the process.

Without being able to change their own laws without our approval, that's not sovereignity, that's colonialism. We might as well make Iraq a U.S. Territory like Guam or Puerto Rico. That seems to be about the regard we hold the country in.

Then you don't read enough.

Actually I was saying it about a newly formed government, not the Iraqi people. I thought it fit quite nicely with the idea that we are looking out for their government and offering a guiding hand while it is still "in its infancy", so to speak.



Where is the US insisting on changing their customs or culture? It's not as though we've introduced the Playboy channel and constant re-runs of Friends on Iraqi TV.

We are changing their form of government...radically. Just a thought that we may want to oversee the process in the beginning, to make sure things don't get ugly.



So what should we do? Give them the keys to the car, total power over all aspects of government, and then just pull out?

We've created a power vacuum there. If we give them total power and walk away, not only do we leave them with relatively non-existant military and law enforcement....but we also open the door for the members of the interim government to try and seize power, provided that one of the insurgent groups doesn't do it first.



Do we want a stable government that is going to endure, or do we just want to watch Iraq become something worse than what it was? I'm inclined to go with the former....and as much as you may disagree with it, they need our help to achieve that. Not because they aren't rational, intelligent adults, but because this is a new form of government for them....and in the early stages, it will be extremely fragile.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

Sure it will be fragile.

But what happens if the first act of the duly elected government is to tell America and the coalition to take its toys and go the fuck home?

My point is, if we don't let the provisional government even have the power to change its laws or create new ones without our approval, what really has changed?

Then we'll "go the fuck home." I don't have a link but an article was posted here a while back where it was stated that if they told us to leave, then we would.

Whether you believe that or not is up to you. However, it is the apparent intention of our government to leave if told to do so.

I would find the article but I have to go to work.

Because it will be a non-event, and in hindsight, this thread will be the best rewrite of Chicken Little in a long time.

AGAIN, are you saying that Iraqis will take over and everything will go smoothly, or that the US will give up little if any actual control and if will be a non-event because nothing really happened that day?  I'm just trying to understand your point.

I'll try again, then. My point is that this thread is chock full of O NOES TEH SKY IS FALLING when whats going to happen is this:

1. We hand over the keys to the snowball stand to Iraq
2. Iraq pays the utility bills to keep the ice cold until they hire a manager
3. A manager will be hired and he will sell snowballs to thirsty softball teams
4. PROFIT

Now, if somewhere between stages 3 and 4, the manager decides that the next big thing in snowballs is urine flavor, then step 4 probably doesn't happen. I'm not sure to what extent the United States would be responsible for the capabilities of an elected Iraqi government - probably no more or less responsible than France was for the re-election of George Washington. Remember: We overthrew Britain because France gave us guns, and a temporary governing body. When the war was over, France was no longer directly responsible for whatever mess the newly liberated American Colonies got themselves into - they stuck around until Cornwallis surrendered, and then left with best wishes. Thats what we will do in Iraq. Okay, Big Bad Government is gone, here's your temporary council, Best Wishes for the Future. Call us.

At which point, Iraq becomes responsible for the future of Iraq.

And guess what: nothing will happen. The sky wont fall, Iraq wont turn into a gigantic bomb of terror, and despite all the noise from the friction of ten thousand Democratic hands wringing in despair on Capitol Hill, it will not drown out the celebration of the Iraqi people when they elect their first leader in almost EVER.

let me know if that is still unclear.

So that would put you in the "Modern Iraqis as 18th-century Americans" camp.  Good luck with that.

You're not worried about the influx of radical elements from the rest of the Middle East which is already underway?  

You're not worried about the perceived legitimacy of a US-installed temporary government, or the permanent government that they install, in the eyes of a populace largely hostile to the American "occupation"?

You're not worried about the reaction of the US to the possible implementation of backwards or nondemocratic laws such as the suppression of the media, the marginalization of women, state-mandated religion, or, worse yet, Sharia Law?

You're not worried about the potential for a Shi'ite tyranny over religious minorities?

You're not worried about the potential for a Saddam Ver 2.0 to rise to power after the US/UN leaves?

You're not worried about the way the invasion is perceived across the Middle East and the effect it has on terrorism?

I don't get it.  Iraq is a mess right now, but as soon as we hand things over it will be fine?

Twenty bucks says you're wrong.

$40 bucks says we need to steal all the oil we can and get the fuck outta there. It'll never happen, it's completely pussified, but I'd like them to start killing themselves again rather than us. Did I ever mention I'd make a HORRIBLE politician?

I'm not worried about the acorn that struck you on the head, no.

Who are you, and what have you done with Arc?

translation: "I'm outta gas."

OK, now you're just channelling Boog.

Whats really sad is that this discussion closely parallels Bush's position.

Channeling Boog is very dangerous. Worst case, Boog, devourer of worlds, will appear. Best case, Arc passes out of exhaustion.

 

This HAS BEEN underway for quite some time. Training an Iraqi military and police force can only help the situation. This is also a reason why we will have emergency authority over the army during the transition....we want both armies to work together, under one command, to put a lid on this situation.



Could their perception of the interim government be viewed as any WORSE than the current CPA? I doubt it.

After the elections, they still don't perceive their government to be legitimate, then that's their problem. After all, they will be the ones electing them. Worst case scenario is that they bond with American Democrats, who haven't pereceived their government to be legitimate for nearly 4 years.



This is the reason that Iraq will not be able to pass laws without our approval during the transition. What they do afterward is up to them.



Which is precisely why we can't simply walk away now. Keep in mind that we are training their military and law enforcement. The idea is to leave the new government with the capability to defend its own sovereignty.



It's a little late to start getting worried about that....the bell has already been rung. We're past the point of worry, and moving on to the "what are we going to do about it" stage.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

What's your opinion of all the armed militias that are going to be existance when we turn over the government?

My opinion is that they are a bunch of doo-doo heads.

Seriously, though...."armed militias" exist there already. We are currently calling them "Iraqi insurgents" and "foreign terrorists".

We are also going to have troops in Iraq for at least another year, and aren't expected to leave until an Iraqi army exists that can defend the country. As of June 30th, we will still be the primary player in terms of security in Iraq.

The "militias" are merely trying to make a grab for power....that's why the situation is called a "power vacuum". Everyone who desires power attempts to rush in to fill it.

That's why we aren't giving them total control on June 30th....we are helping this new government to stand on it's own. Not just in terms of their governmental processes, but in terms of developing their military as well.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

Dark, all of your answers are the same.  
"Yeah, its pretty fucked up!"

(This HAS BEEN underway for quite some time.....Could their perception of the interim government be viewed as any WORSE......What they do afterward is up to them.....we can't simply walk away now.....It's a little late to start getting worried about that....)

Yes Dark, it is fucked up.  Arcadianaloo, or whatever, either doesn't see that or has decided to just fuck with us.

You're responding to comments I'm not making. I'm not saying that everything is going great and that Iraq will be a freedom loving outpost for liberty and democracy.

I'm saying that we WILL hand over the keys, that the handover will be uneventful, and we'll all wake up the following morning to a bright sunshiney day whose only difference from the day before will be the fact that we dont have the keys to Iraq on our keychain any longer.

I dont think we'll get our security deposit back because our puppy peed on the carpet - but once we hand over the keys, somebody else's name is on the lease, and they get to pick what color they want when they order the new carpet.

If its hot pink, it might be ugly - but at least they get to pick what they want.

Heres the Cliff Notes version:

You said everything would be OK.  

I asked about a host of serious existing problems or potential problems.

You responded with an insult.

Dark actually responded to my points.

I responded to Dark.

You re-stated your original point again.

Interesting that, more than simply not seeing any looming problems in Iraq, you consider the very suggestion of potential problems to be an over-reaction.



Neither is Bush...anymore.  Of course, he hasn't really brought up the WMD thing in a while either.

That's great, except I'm thinking that they'll probably invite all their thug friends over for a housewarming party, break out the windows, and start shooting at the neighbor's houses.

Or whatever stupid-ass metaphor you want to use.

Its no more or less stupid than every point you've made in this thread, zipper-neck.

In other news, the new interim president is one that the US led coalition didn't want, and one that thinks the US did a pretty lousy job of managing post-war Iraq. In a related story, the movie Day After Tomorrow did not come true.

The day after tomorrow was no documentation, the fact that the cold air miraculously wasn't able to go down the chimney but the smog from the fire went up should have clued you in on that, Arc.

But how exactly is that story related anyway?

Thats like saying "the Islamic one with the facial hair."  CNN describes the position as "largely ceremonial," BTW.

read the thread. I'm done with it, but your answers lie within.

see this is exactly what I was trying to refer to in this thread - the making up of data to create a pandemonious story out of a non-eventful one. Whats the polling data that makes it so obvious to everyone but me that everybody in IRaq with a beard thinks the US is doing a horrible job. I guess what you're data is proving is that women universally approve of the US post-war management?

respond if you like - I'm on other topics/threads this week.

You're still not making any sense.  You seem fixated on a date without considering the larger problems in Iraq.

I think that was his point.

No, I don't think so.

Hmmm, that was what I got out of it.

Media kicks up a storm about the handover date.  'It's going to be terrible, there's going to be trouble, fire and brimstone'.

Handover date comes and goes.  Things just as fucked up over there as they always have been and always will.

Nothing changes instantly due to a date.

That's what I got out of his shadowy ramblings.

I mean, some of you here are worried about various things in connection with the Middle East.  That's fine.  You're Americans and therefore the first target.  You're right to worry.

However, worrying that it's all going to kick off on this certain day is a little silly.  As Boog would say, it changes nothing;  the guys over there either hate you or don't;  they're either actively planning your deaths or not.

What the hell difference is the handover going to make ?

Arcadian ISN'T saying that everything is going to magically turn out right on that day.  He's just saying that it's not going to change anything important as far as it affects a bunch of guys on a message board.

In my opinion anyway - I dislike putting words in his mouth.
Feel free to say "That may be what you got out of it, but it's fucking bullshit you fucking euro-fag".  I mean, I'm easy.


On a totally unrelated note; How's the wife doing, Arc ?

In any case, 22 days and counting.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

People worry about it getting worse shortly after the handover, or they worry about whether or not the handover will be real in any sense.  Arc doesn't have any comment on whether or not the handover will have any meaning, and he seems to be confining his comments to the 24-hour period following some kind of June 30th ceremony, at which point nothing will really have had time to happen, and he won't elaborate on the longer term picture.   So yeah, even if all of our guys jumped back into their Hummers and headed full speed towards The Fuck Out, it would take a day or so for things to really hit the fan.  Arc gets to be right because Arc isn't saying anything.

    As soon as we hand things over, things will be fine FOR THE US.  We get to be in charge, and control everything, without looking so much like an invader.  That's why the date is fixed in stone.  We have to look good on paper asap.  There's an election coming up.