U.S. to End Iraq Administration by June

[jimnyc]

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.S.-led occupation administration in Iraq will end by June after a transitional government is selected and assumes sovereignty, the Iraqi Governing Council said Saturday.

The announcement was made following talks between the council and the chief administrator, L. Paul Bremer, who returned Thursday from Washington after talks with President Bush and senior national security advisers.

Faced with escalating violence in Iraq, the Bush administration wants to speed up the handover of power to Iraqis — dropping its earlier insistence that the Iraqis draw up a new constitution before the U.S.-led coalition looked to transfer power.

Council member Ahmad Chalabi, appearing at a news conference with other members, said the selection of a transitional government should be completed by May. The goverment, he said, will be "internationally recognized" and with "full sovereignty."

Council President Jalal Talabani, speaking in Arabic, said the transitional administration would be selected after consultations with "all parties" in Iraqi society.

Council members also said the plans called for a permanent constitution to be drafted and an elected administration chosen by the end of 2005.

The end of the U.S. occupation authority would not necessarily mean the departure of all American troops. However, Talabani said they would have a new status.

"The new government will be in charge of negotiating with the occupying forces over how to regulate their presence in the country," Talabani said.

Sunni Muslim council member Adnan Pachachi said the U.S.-appointed Governing Council will notify the U.N. Security Council of the timetable for creating the new institutions. The United Nations has set a deadline of Dec. 15 for the timetable.

"The reason behind the setting up of this transitional government is to restore sovereignty, to end the occupation and to give a chance to a representative of the Iraqi people to represent Iraq," Pachachi said.

Talabani said the new leadership would fully respect human rights and freedom of religion. It would also ensure separation of powers between executive, legislative and judicial branches, maintain civilian control of the armed forces and respect the country's Islamic identity.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._on_re_mi_ea/iraq_occupation&cid=540&ncid=716

 

[dijetlo]

Posted by Jimnyc
Council member Ahmad Chalabi, appearing at a news conference with other members, said the selection of a transitional government should be completed by May. The goverment, he said, will be "internationally recognized" and with "full sovereignty."

but not elected by the Iraqi people if your reading this little missive closely. Are we going to rely on Chalabi and his buddies from the INC to "democratize" Iraq? Aren't these the same jokers who sat in London for five years taking millions of dollars from the US to start an Iraqi resistance against Saddam (but never accomplishing anything more productive than buying vacation homes in Switzerland)?
I know you think this is a good sign, jim. Unfortunately the history of these people is graft, corruption and bank fraud (Chalabi wont be going to Jordan, regardless of his position in the Iraqi government cause he has little prison cell waiting for him there due to his prior carreer as a con man). We, conversely, want him to be the George washingon of Iraq, unfortunately nobody can make a silk purse from a sows ear.

 

[SLClemens]

I guess is this is a start in the right direction. It's a shame that it took terrorism and guerrilla warfare in Iraq to accelerate this program. It shows Iraqis that violence can work in some ways; but better accelerate this program now that a few hundred body bags later.

So Iraqis will get to vote for at least an adminstration (presumably a President who will then appoint a cabinet) in 2005, about two years, if all goes well. This will be a long time for people to get upset about a puppet government.

The fact taht we have this coming out now, while our first viceroy Jay Garner was expecting elections in 90 days, shows the extent to which it's all guesswork, largely reactionary, and being made up as we go along. But that's how colonialism usually works.

 

[jimnyc]

I love it! Liberals cry foul when they want the US to leave, then cry foul again when those arrangements are made.

Can anyone offer an alternative solution that will have our soldiers starting to come home by june?

 

[jimnyc]

I guess is this is a start in the right direction. It's a shame that it took terrorism and guerrilla warfare in Iraq to accelerate this program. It shows Iraqis that violence can work in some ways; but better accelerate this program now that a few hundred body bags later.

I'll agree with this.

So Iraqis will get to vote for at least an adminstration (presumably a President who will then appoint a cabinet) in 2005, about two years, if all goes well. This will be a long time for people to get upset about a puppet government.

True, but they see light at the end of the tunnel, something they haven't seen in many, many years.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I love it! Liberals cry foul when they want the US to leave, then cry foul again when those arrangements are made.

Can anyone offer an alternative solution that will have our soldiers starting to come home by june?

No, there is no good solution to such a situation; it's hard even to guess what the least worst one might be. I for one am not crying foul when the US wants to leave, though I have been crying foul at some of the things are soldiers are being asked to do. There is simply no way to get round the fact that this is going to be very long and expensive in the best of cases. Putting as much authority into the UN and an elected Iraqi council seems the least worst situation. Iraqis surely deserve better than Chalabi.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc

True, but they see light at the end of the tunnel, something they haven't seen in many, many years.

I'm not sure they've finished digging the tunnel yet, or even figured out in which direction they're going to dig their way out of this mess.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jimnyc
True, but they see light at the end of the tunnel, something they haven't seen in many, many years.

Come on, jim. We're aren't little kids here and neither are the Iraqis. Chalabis faction was given a leading role in creating a mechanism for a constitution by 12/15 and they didn't even come to the meetings, but now he is going to produce a constitution if we put him in charge?
The UN is probably going to wash its' hands of Iraq when they fail to meet that deadline and Chalabi will only have to contend with the US whining about Iraqi freedom. His only power is derived from his position as chief puppet of the US defense department. He knows it, we know it, and every Iraqi knows it. If there ever is a free election in Iraq, he will probably be summarily extradited to face his crimes in Jordan (he knows that too, btw).

Ibid
I love it! Liberals cry foul when they want the US to leave, then cry foul again when those arrangements are made.
Can anyone offer an alternative solution that will have our soldiers starting to come home by june?

I have to laugh at that one, it isn't liberals that are driving the US policy, it is the center of the electorate that is walking away from this occupation. The liberals have no impact on GWBs' strategies they've oposed him since '00. He can read a poll, though and the opinions of independence (the center) is what is driving this policy shift.
As for a solution, there isn't one. We are in for a long, hard, bloody slog no matter how you cut it. As bry (I think) pointed out, Chalabi is speaking to the american public, probably at the behest of his masters over at the Defense department.

 

[jimnyc]

Come on, jim. We're aren't little kids here and neither are the Iraqis. Chalabis faction was given a leading role in creating a mechanism for a constitution by 12/15 and they didn't even come to the meetings, but now he is going to produce a constitution if we put him in charge?

Again, do you have an alternate plan? Has anyone offered an alternate, viable plan?

The UN is probably going to wash its' hands of Iraq when they fail to meet that deadline and Chalabi will only have to contend with the US whining about Iraqi freedom. His only power is derived from his position as chief puppet of the US defense department. He knows it, we know it, and every Iraqi knows it. If there ever is a free election in Iraq, he will probably be summarily extradited to face his crimes in Jordan (he knows that too, btw).

I haven't read much about the Iraq people voicing displeasure over Chalabi, but I also wasn't looking for any. Can you provide me with some links.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Again, do you have an alternate plan? Has anyone offered an alternate, viable plan?



I haven't read much about the Iraq people voicing displeasure over Chalabi, but I also wasn't looking for any. Can you provide me with some links.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A17745-2003Oct25&notFound=true


"Ahmed Chalabi, for example, a Shiite exile who heads the Iraqi National Congress and is a favorite of the Pentagon, is an appointed member of the Iraqi Governing Council. In the poll, 38 percent said they did not know enough about him to comment. Nonetheless, he has by far the highest unfavorable rating among the 25 council members listed in the survey -- 35 percent of those polled said they were unfavorable toward Chalabi, while 26 percent were favorable."

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Again, do you have an alternate plan? Has anyone offered an alternate, viable plan?

Other than giving the whole thing to the UN with a blank check and having GWB right a thousand time "I will not invade foriegn nations on trumped up intelligence", I don't really see any other way out of our predicament.

Ibid
I haven't read much about the Iraq people voicing displeasure over Chalabi, but I also wasn't looking for any. Can you provide me with some links.

The recent gallup poll wont be available (except to the premium customers) for another 15 days, but do you realy need a poll to get a read on this guy? He is convictd con artist, for the love of God, do you really think the Iraqis are looking forward to having him in charge? Do you really think we can expect him to keep his word (if so, you might want to ask him about Saddams Nuclear Bomb, since he used to claim to know a lot about it.)
He was part of the "bad intelligence" that got us into this mess, why are you so ready to trust him again? (Or are you?)

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by SLClemens
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A17745-2003Oct25&notFound=true


"Ahmed Chalabi, for example, a Shiite exile who heads the Iraqi National Congress and is a favorite of the Pentagon, is an appointed member of the Iraqi Governing Council. In the poll, 38 percent said they did not know enough about him to comment. Nonetheless, he has by far the highest unfavorable rating among the 25 council members listed in the survey -- 35 percent of those polled said they were unfavorable toward Chalabi, while 26 percent were favorable."

Thank you Mr. Twain...

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by dijetlo
The recent gallup poll wont be available (except to the premium customers) for another 15 days, but do you realy need a poll to get a read on this guy? He is convictd con artist, for the love of God, do you really think the Iraqis are looking forward to having him in charge? Do you really think we can expect him to keep his word (if so, you might want to ask him about Saddams Nuclear Bomb, since he used to claim to know a lot about it.)
He was part of the "bad intelligence" that got us into this mess, why are you so ready to trust him again? (Or are you?)

I honestly don't know enough of him to formulate an honest opinion at this point. I do know that on his worst days he is still infinitely better than Saddam. And again, I don't think prior misdeeds preclude you from being respectable in government. Shouldn't Slick Willy have his political papers removed forever if so? He was lucky he was only disbarred. Regardless, my point is that Chalabi is part of a new government that is achieving things that haven't happened in Iraq in many moons. Remove him afterwards, bring up his conviction in absentia - nothing changes the accomplishments.

 

[spillmind]

i've got your 'accomplishments' right here:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...u=/ap/20031115/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_helicopter

i see lateral movemtent, if not regression. i admire you optimism, but i believe it is more dictated by your devotion to your beloved GOP agenda, than by unbiased common sense. my 2¢

 

[spillmind]

i can't help but wonder:

when we 'leave' iraq, will we

a) still control the country's oil supply?

b) let them instill a new government by way of a democratic process?

an even better question: what if we leave our troops in there and they keep getting attacked, and the new government cannot maintain order in iraq?

this kind of speculation could have prevented our previous mistakes of underestimation and poor judgement.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jimnyc
...is that Chalabi is part of a new government that is achieving things that haven't happened in Iraq in many moons.

It is being accomplished by the US Army, not the Iraqi Authority. They can't even get enough people to show up to get a quorum.

Remove him afterwards, bring up his conviction in absentia.

The problem with little worms like Hussein and Chalabi is it often takes armed conflict to remove them once they insinuate their way into power

 

[Bry]

Can we please get the UN in here?

What is the argument against opening this up to the UN (aside from the obvious unspoken ones)? jim? anyone?

I don't like this sudden acceleration either. i've been consistent on this point: now that we're there, we'd better do it right, and to do it right would require opening it to the UN. Looks like someone smells an election, and i'm not talking about elections in Iraq. What an incredible gamble!

Aside from turning things over to the UN, I don't have any suggestions, unfortunately. I'm amazed by this new schedule, but at the same time, we can't let the current strategy continue for a year or two waiting for the absentee council to come up with something. Now it looks like the current interim gov't has played their cards well, and are going to receive unprecedented powers in the formation of the government. Any word on how the new gov't will be "selected" and by May no less?

 

[jimnyc]

Good questions, Bry.

I as well think the UN should be in there. I can't answer as to why it isn't happening, but more than likely still bad blood over the invasion/vetos/resolutions. This is where I disagree with our administration, they should get whatever help is necessary for our soldiers. I don't have a problem with their current efforts but I think bringing in the UN would then bring more of the world on our side in current attacks and rebuilding Iraq.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Good questions, Bry.

I as well think the UN should be in there. I can't answer as to why it isn't happening, but more than likely still bad blood over the invasion/vetos/resolutions.

I can think of one other reason. It's not that hard to figure out, either. If the UN was in control of Iraq it would want control of Iraq's resources. What would the UN, an Iraqi council, or better yet, an elected council, decide to do with Iraqi oil? Would they want to deal with American companies? Would they want to sell it for the highest price they could get? Would they want to sell it in Euros, as Saddam did?

For many of the war's proponents, our soldiers lives are far more important than what happens to Iraqi oil. Unfortunately, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush don't seem to be among them.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
I can think of one other reason. It's not that hard to figure out, either. If the UN was in control of Iraq it would want control of Iraq's resources. What would the UN, an Iraqi council, or better yet, an elected council, decide to do with Iraqi oil? Would they want to deal with American companies? Would they want to sell it for the highest price they could get? Would they want to sell it in Euros, as Saddam did?

For many of the war's proponents, our soldiers lives are far more important than what happens to Iraqi oil. Unfortunately, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush don't seem to be among them.

Please, Clemens!

I'm admitting that I think their are perhaps better ways to see an end to the Iraq occupation, but it doesn't include the US leaving.

The war for oil argument is old and hasn't been proven once.