Iraqi Sovereignty Transfered

JavaFox

In a surprising move, the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority, who had hitherto been in charge of administrating Iraq, today handed over authority to the interim Iraqi government, two days ahead of schedule. Though its members were hand-chosen by the US, Prime Minister Allawi enjoys considerable --although not majority-- support among the Iraqi people, and the majority of Iraqis are optimistic that the interim government will put their country on a better track. The Coalition will still maintain forces in Iraq, and will still aid the Iraqis in keeping Iraq secure. That said, the sovereignty of Iraq now belongs to the interim government -- if they want us to leave, they can tell us to leave. Prime Minister Allawi has also promised that Saddam Hussein will stand before an Iraqi judge and be charged for his crimes within the next week.

This is a big day for Iraq. Thoughts?

Whatever your opinion of the war was, I hope that all of us wish Iraq and its government the very best. I hope that the interim government --which enjoys much more credibility than the CPA-- can help lead Iraq to a peaceful, safe, prosperous, and democratic future. I fear that if things don't turn around now, they won't.

Good luck, Iraq.

Falstaff

I have a personal interest in the success of the turnover, my brothers division will be rotating troops and technicians through Iraq during this phase and none of them want their heads lopped off. I can clearly see reprisals from other governments being executed covertly on headsmen of these ultrafundamentalists and criminals. It is clear that western and middle eastern powers will not tolerate any rational dialogue with those that commit these acts. Forgive me, but democracy has an icecubes chance in hell surviving without our continued support, I see Iraq becoming a theocracy within a year unless the IRAQ government starts to round up anything that looks like a terrorist and shooting them, Saddam did that and it really worked. Just short of despotism again, I wonder what will become of the succession government

raid517

So let me get this straight... You are advocating support and admiration for Saddam's methods? Saddam was a monster who butchered and tortured millions. What is the point in taking one despotic regime and replacing it with another?

Where are the principals of democracy and freedom then? Why the hell did you bother to invade? What on Earth was all the fighting for?

There is only one right way to deal with these terrorists - and that is to round them up, put them on trial and if found guilty toss them in jail for a very long time.

That is how civilized countries work - although I'm beginning to think that some of you guys are loosing sight of this.

Anyway although statements such as this tend to make me feel physically sick with disgust, thankfully it is unlikely to happen.

I wish the Iraq people well. But also I wish that they are allowed to decide on their own futures and how they wish to be governed.

Whatever that may be, I think it is a decision that we should all respect.

GJ

Nacht

He didnt say round up and slaughter innocent kurds, or other civillians. Now, I dont agree with the "looks like a terrorist" part, because that clearly makes no sense...But taking a harsher stance with them will certainly help out.

If someone commits murder, they should be put in jail. Anybody convicted of multiple murders should have the death penalty...either that or a correct prison (By this, I mean a reform of America's prison...where the taxpayers no longer have to provide the prisoners with healthcare, dental, food, lodging, etc while they make money).

raid517

Well it would still end up looking the same. You round up all your supposed 'enemies' (who may only happen to be your enemies because you are in their country pissing them off) and then routinely slaughter them. And he did propose rounding up people and butchering them.

Sometime I wonder if people who express views like this are really much better than animals.

We have justice for a reason, we have courts for a reason, we have a legal system for a damn good reason too. Thank god guys like you who support stuff like this don't have the final say on how this world is run.

Anyway, as for your comments about the imprisoning of criminals, I think it is wrong to impose your republican views of the justice system on the Iraqi people. Let them decide on their own legal system - and how best to deal with the problems in their own country.

GJ

Nacht

No, it wont. People that ARE terrorists are different from people that are SUPPOSED terrorists. I made the distinction in my post, that I disagreed with killing supposed terrorists, but supported that of known terrorists.

Saddam did do that, and it did work. It was not ethically correct for him to do, but it did work nontheless.

And besides, we're not the ones that would round up the people and kill them...that would be the interim he was talking about...so WE'RE not really the one's they're mad at, but they're own people. (if it is an attack on the interim, it is an attack on their own people...not talking about troops here). On top of that, pissing someone off DOES NOT justify using terrorism under any circumstances. Guess what is allowed now in iraq. Peaceful protests. They do not have to murder their country men and our troops to show what they want.

raid517

Well as I said, I'm all for the rule of law - but I am in no way supportive of any new administration becoming 'like Saddam.' That kind of murderous brutality is never justified under any circumstances.

If you don't care about ethics, you don't care about anything. You essentially are an animal.

Anyway have you ever considered that some of the people involved in these attacks may just be Iraqis who are pissed at the US presence in their country? Have you considered that they might just be extremely angry with America because they remember what happen the last time the Americans came to their country and told them that they had their best interests at heart? (In case you don't recall, tens of thousands of them were slaughtered).

Maybe - and with some justification - they just don't believe a damn word that the Americans have to say. Maybe they will only relax after real elections are held in January - and they don't have to live with what they see as a puppet government any more.

In any case it's a kind of fine line how you define terrorism. For terrorists they often seem to use some very conventional tactics, like blowing up power plants, mining roads, destroying oil supplies, outright ambushes, disrupting supply lines and so on... The odd car bomb you hear of is more of the exception than the rule - in what is at time a surprisingly conventional and well organized war.

It seems the main reason that you term them as 'terrorists' is because they simply piss you off. It just easier to define them as that than admit that you may well have a genuine insurgency on your hands.

GJ

Sturmbahn

Whoa there Raid, calm down buddy!

When I read Jeff's post, I also could see an Iraqi government without any US support becoming increasingly frustrated with domestic terrorism and turn to actions that were proven to work - a return to the days of Saddam. It's not the preferred choice of the evil right wing republicans of the hated power-hungry establishment of the United States simply because Jeff could easily see it coming. Does it make sense now?

raid517

No, I think I read it right first time round. It appears Jeff is openly advocating rounding up anybody who even looks like a terrorist and shooting them in the head.

In any case it is a pointless argument, because it isn't going to happen. America would become a sick joke in the eyes of the world if they were shown to be every bit as bad as Saddam...

Given the recent screw ups over the Iraqi prisoner abuse photos I doubt the reputation of the USA can afford to take another pounding - particularly of the kind that something like this would produce. Even if it was left to the Iraqis, it would need to be done under the supervision of US forces - since plainly the Iraqis are in no real position to defend themselves right now.

GJ

Sturmbahn

He didn't openly advocate it as the only solution - just as one that did work. And the only way that would come to pass is if we ended our continued support of the fledgling government (just as Jeff mentioned). That is a strong possibility, which is why we (Americans) with continue to be a strong force in the region. Hopefully we will also maintain a permanent base as we do in Germany and Japan (I think). Doing so could also relax our one-sided relationship with Saudi Arabia a bit as we wouldn't need to buy our way in to use their airports as a launch pad - as we did both times we were at war with Iraq.

raid517

Well that's not what I read and that's not what he said. But there you are you read things the way you want to. That's up to you. Like I said it's irrelevant anyway as it isn't going to happen.

As for the rest of your comments - well that's the only thing of any interest worth noting here - insomuch as this was all this invasion was ever about. It had bog all to do with 'terrorism' - or the threat Saddam posed to America (which was no threat at all), nor did it have anything to do with freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny. The US just wanted a full time Middle Eastern base and they were prepared to do virtually anything to get it. It's no wonder a lot of the Iraqis dont believe you.

You might think that's justified - but it's pretty low down and nasty anyway.

They may have wanted to wrap it up in some candy sweet excuse about looking for WMDs or hunting terrorists - but at the end of the day not a lot of people bought it.

Talk about cynicism. That is giving the term cynicism a whole new definition.

GJ

Sturmbahn

I highly doubt that we toppled Saddam's regime simply to establish a military base that we wouldn't need to pay for. More likely an added bonus , just as we might see some better oil prices, hopefully. I believe that Saddam was a threat, just not as large nor as imminent a threat as the media and intelligence agencies of the world made him out to be. Our mistake in the end. The reasoning to go may have been wrong, but does anyone think that the world was better off with Saddam in charge? Are the people of Iraq better off now? Surrounding countries? Why trash the US for its reasoning behind the attack when the world is better off now because of it (this is not an attack on anyone - I am American and I actually do want to hear honest outside opinions)?

Back to the point, if we don't act like a big brother to protect Iraq from its neighbors and subversives from within, then Iraq will go the same way Africa did when the Europeans released their colonies - anarchy and many opposing groups backed by warlords. Another complete disaster to add to America's shoddy record - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...47910?v=glance (The Soccer War - a very good book about the US and USSR supporting opposing groups in third world countries without regard to the group's ethics or future inclinations).

raid517

Well that is all a matter of opinion. There is another large and increasingly predominant body of opinion that says that the US was looking for a strategic foothold in the Middle East (it's not about not wanting to pay for it, it's about having the potential to strike freely in the region at any time) and that all the US government did was look for a way to make the available facts fit their predefined goals.

Is the world a better of place without Saddam? Undoubtedly - though he should have been ousted 12 or so years ago instead of waiting all this time. Are the Iraqi a better place for having the US military permanently entrenched in their country? Well that may well be debatable. I wonder if push came to shove and they voted someone in you didn't like and they asked the troops to leave, what America's real reaction would be?

It is interesting that you are referring to Iraq as a 'colony' now - as this is much closer to the truth than anyone may think. It may not be the start of a global empire, but it is a form of rule by might.

But like I said, what interests me most anyway is the Iraqi elections.

I'm pretty sure if the Iraqis are allowed to vote in whatever way they see fit, that they may have several surprises for us all.

Things may not go quite as most of those on the right in America might think - or like.

What I wonder will you do then?

GJ

JavaFox

It is little more than the soft bigotry of low expectations to assume that the people of Iraq are incapable of governing themselves. There seems to be no conclusive evidence that Iraqis --or any group: Arabs, Persians, Kurds, etc.-- do not want control over their own destiny. Democracy, in some form or another, is a fundamental human desire. With our help and money, and with their own sweat, blood, and tears, the Iraqis will be free.

To borrow the post of another Internet forum poster, I just hope that in the future, when Iraq is an ally, and a prosperous, democratic oasis in the Middle East, those of you who doubted will have the memory and the integrity to be ashamed of yourselves.

raid517

And who exactly are you referring to? I have never doubted Iraq's ability to govern themselves. Indeed the sooner that this can be made possible the better. (In this I mean via truly democratic elections). The only point I made is that the way Iraq chooses to govern herself might not be quite in line with what some people here might prescribe.

Whatever way you look at it, this would present an extremely interesting scenario. What if for example after the election Iraq isn't the ally you predict any more - what if for example Iraq elects to go the way of Iran? Given the current political make up of the Iraq religious leadership, that seems like more than a possibility at the moment.

Will the US accept the choice the Iraqis make then?

I am genuinely curious about this.

GJ

Sturmbahn

Iraq as an American colony? Just ridiculous. Where are the settlers to this new frontier? That's stupid. My reference was solely to the now non-existing European colonies across the world that were broken apart after WWII. I think only the British bothered to leave stable governments in place, although they didn't bother very hard.

Softly bigoted or not, I don't want to see this new government fall apart simply because people (read morons in my opinion) want the US to pull out as fast as we can. We should make sure that we leave a government fully capable of holding Iraq together after our withdrawl. If we pull out too soon, we'll leave a vacuum that will attract power hungry individuals to try to wrest control from this government.

Falstaff

Saddams methods were tyrannical and beyond explaination in effectiveness, but he held the country together with terror, image what his country will use as a template for success if the current roadmap fails.....I give you a couple of guesses...but I strongly lean towards their return to a theocracy or despotism...

raid517

Well there's something to be said for the idea of a colony - although as I have said many times in the past is that the unfortunate thing about this kind of colonialism is that it has all of the drawbacks and none of the benefits. The country in question gets the dubious privilege of being occupied - while getting few if any of the benefits that would normally be associated with alignment with a genuine empire. (Read roads, hospitals, schools and so on).

If this is empire, its not much of one. The one way in which the US tends to behave like an empire is by exactly the methods you described - which is to plant troops in virtually every country on the Earth in military bases - and make it known that if anyone screws with them, there will be a price to pay.

But really again this can seem a half assed way to do things, as the US military struggles to intimidate even a little 3rd world country like Iraq, let alone any potentially more significant foe. A lot of this is simply down to resources - America has some impressive kit - but it doesn't have a bottomless pit of cash to fund any real kind of social engineering - especially on a global scale. Eventually people's interest will wane, and cost will always creep into the equation.

As I said, if the US is an empire, it certainly isn't a very impressive one.


And anyway, as pointed out too, who's to say that the Iraqis won't decide on their own destiny in next January's elections? Who's to say that they won't elect a religiously focused anti-American government into power - who would then ask the US and 'coalition' forces to leave?

It would be somewhat ironic would it not, if America's tenure in Iraq were cut short by the very people that you guys claim to have liberated?

You all seem to want to skirt round this possibility. But what if that's what did happen? What would be your view then?

GJ

JavaFox

Iraq has never been a fundamentalist nation. They have always been largely secular, rejecting the more radical leanings of its neighbors. They have a diverse bunch and the doomsday predictions of civil war along religious lines (Shia vs. Sunni, for example) seem now to be as ill-guided as the ignorance that perpetuated them in the first place. Frankly I don't see it. Even Iraq's most prominent --and if you are familiar with his teachings, he is not what I would consider a religious moderate-- cleric, Ayatollah Sistani, has expressed his commitment to the poltical process and the interim government. He is surprisingly adept at the game, as we've seen.

I think we'll see, much to the suprising of many condescending Westerners, that the Iraqis do want freedom, don't want fundamentalism, and do know how to play politics. If I am wrong, I'll admit it, but I doubt I will be. Iraq is a nation that yearns and deserves to be free. Now that they have their chance, the Iraqi people seem --as I do-- to be cautiously optimistic about their futures.

No, it would not be ironic at all. If the Iraqis asked us to leave, I would be glad --as I am sure they would be as well-- that they now have the right and the wherewithal to say this is not what we want for our country. Even if we are kicked out, it will be a good day for the Iraqi people.

ps: The big concern with fundamentalist governments is that they infringe on minority and civil rights. This is why we draft constitutions, and why Iraq has a constitution that protects such rights.

Sturmbahn

Cautiously optimistic... that's an apt phrase. We're all optimistic that everything will turn out all right, but cautious that something bad might happen - much like taking a band-aid off of a freshly healed wound. The Iraqis will be free of us soon and the sooner the better for both sides, but I don't want anything to happen that would pull us right back in. That's my greatest fear about this. We should get out, but make sure that we are able to stay out. If Raid's alternative comes to pass and a fanatical government comes into power, then America might feel that it needs to clean its own mess right back up. I really don't want to see that.

raid517

Hmm... I don't doubt their ability to play politics, what I do wonder is if they will be willing to play politics the way that we understand it.

Whatever way you look at Iran - it's not a model of government that many people in the West would like to see applied to Iraq.

It is essentially a two tier system. It is a democracy of sorts - but there is a theocracy that literally sits on top of that democracy and which holds ultimate power over every decision that is made. (A bit like the lower and higher houses of government in America - except in this instance the Clerics are the ones who have the final say).

I agree with you that if that is what happened - if in theory the Iraqis asked America to leave, that this would still represent a victory for the Iraqis. But the question is, would this still represent a victory for the Americans?

What if it was an Iranian style government is implemented? What if the US is asked to leave? Just how much do you feel would have been achieved?

No military bases (regardless if this was a deliberate objective or not) a government that may be openly hostile to US interests... What i wonder could America take from this?

Stranger things have happened. I'm not saying it will go that way. But it could very easily go either way.

That is what interests me about this scenario.

GJ

raid517

Mmm, that's exactly the interesting scenario I'm pointing to... Because ultimately you said that the Iraqis have the right to choose their own destiny.

So what if the Iraqi people themselves choose a destiny that you don't like?

Either they do have that right or they do not - and if they don't then they are not truly free at all are they? The only 'Freedom' they would have would be to choose a government from candidates that the US imposed on them - and that would be no kind of freedom at all.

The bottom line then is that you would definitely need a permanent American presence in place in Iraq, simply so that you could prop up whatever form of government that you thought was appropriate for the Iraqis.

And if that were the case, you would also be guaranteed that for as long as American troops stayed, they would continue to be a target.

As I said, if anything it is certainly an interesting hypothetical dilema...


GJ

JavaFox

If those things happened and if the Iraqis decided that's how they wanted to run things, then it will be a victory, at least to me. When you help give someone control over their own affairs, there is always the chance that they will not agree with you. That's the risk we run in implementing democracy.

But, like I said, I have faith in the Iraqis. They are not known for being fundamentalist. They are diverse. They do not oppress their women. They are an educated lot, and have a lot of potential. For all the oppression they suffered under Saddam, they seem to be pretty adept at politics -- the Iraqis have had the courage to form their own newspapers and political parties already. In the end, I think the Iraqis have the sense to adhere to their consitution, to protect minority rights, and to preserve the right to the free exercise of religion.

We'll see. My prediction is that Iraqi democracy will not taste quite like American democracy, but it will still taste good.

raid517

Hmm... well my prediction is that it will be a very 'Middle Eastern' flavour of democracy - that will have strong leanings towards the Iranian