Article

2007-03-22 Iraq

Not handing power to Iraqis quickly was 'mistake': Bolton

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2007-03-22 00:00|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Bolton is right. It was an understandable mistake to want to handover to an elected government, but a non-elected interim government could have been formed and given control. Hindsight is 20/20 as always.

Posted by phil_b 2007-03-22 00:16|| 2007-03-22 00:16|| Front Page Top

#2 I disagree 100%. The main mistake has been precisely the rush to "transition" when the recipients weren't ready. I understand the strategy, and the dynamic at work (tension between fostering dependency by not handing over, and risking disaster by handing over prematurely). This is a pure hindsight call on my part, as I was generally favorable and focused on the benefits of rapid transition in spring 2004.

But once it became clear that the Sunni community(ies) would support/tolerate/be intimidated by a campaign of extreme violence to oppose the new Iraq, a big change needed to be made. Ever since that point, our main problem (aside from ROE and a quasi-judicial element in our operations/detentions) has been the ungodly rush to hand over when it obviously was too soon.

Casey's remarks in '05 linking transition to US draw-down were a double-disaster - signalling a strategy shift that was doomed in its own terms and also both encouraged the enemy and helped disorient the US populace. To this day most of the discussions on Iraq are framed by time of departure - not by protection of national interest or achievement of objectives.

I can't see a single bit of evidence that logically supports Bolton's assertion.

Having said that, I think Bolton is about the best thing going - utterly serious and responsible about facing threats and problems. He understands a public employee's or diplomat's job is to get things done, not make friend with foreigners or Beltway swells.

Posted by Verlaine 2007-03-22 00:17|| 2007-03-22 00:17|| Front Page Top

#3 I agree with Bolton to some extent, not handing over the government faster allowed Al Queda to convince many idiots in Iraq (and in the anti-war movement) that we were taking over.

Bush should have used the signed law supporting and funding the Iraqi National Congess. We should have supported them the way we did the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. The Iraqi's might have risen up for fellow Iraqi's in a way arabic face-saving didn't allow for Western liberators.

Of course that would have meant a delay to Democracy and Democracy is the ace-card, the long game, the big win. If we can get a functioning Democracy in Iraq everything will have been worthwhile.

Posted by rjschwarz">rjschwarz 2007-03-22 00:36|| rjschwarz.com]">[rjschwarz.com] 2007-03-22 00:36|| Front Page Top

#4 WAFF.com/CNN > Iran's Khameini threatens Iran will engage in "illegal" nuke work [iff US-West can engage in illegal criminal actions so can Iran]; + IRAN MUST HAVE NUKES [Iran making no threats but is being threatened by everybody + Dubya]; + BOLTON: REGIME CHANGE OR MILITARY FORCE [Nuclearized IRAN] -pro-democratic "regime change" M-U-S-T take place in Iran, wid or widout the Iranian People, OR THE USA-WEST MUST ACCEPT A RADICAL IRAN WID NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Bolton > latter scenario is absolutely un-acceptable and the worst case scenario for the US-West. US = USA-WEST MUST BE READY AND WILLING TO UNILATERALLY RESORT, IFF NECESSARY, TO USE MILITARY FORCE TO PREVENT RADICAL IRAN FROM ACQUIRING NUCLEAR WEAPONS. * REGNUM.RU >RUSSIA - is NOT convinced NORTH KOREA will shut down reactors = nucprogs in 60 days as per accords and despite release of US$25Milyuhn from Banco Delta Asia. ISLAMSWORD > DYING AMERICA - Amer failure to stop Radical Islam signals a de facto decline in Amer power + legitimacy, AND IN ALL LIKELIHOOD WILL NOT SAVE AMERICA OR WEST FROM MARCH OF ISLAM. See related in FREEDOMNOW > THE COMING AMERICAN COLLAPSE AND CIVIL WAR - surprise, surprise, WAFFLISM aka POLITIX will be instrumental = decisive in the decline of America's power + place in the world. BTW, IN CASE YOU DIDn'T KNOW ALREADY, ITS ALSO AND REMAINS DUBYA'S FAULT. NEWSMAX > MCCAIN > Warns about DISTURBING SOCIALISM in LATIN AMERICA. All together now, wid feeling, "OH, LATIN AMERICA, NOT NORTH AMERICA"???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-03-22 03:18|| 2007-03-22 03:18|| Front Page Top

#5 Actually, training of Iraqis began almost immediately. I blame foreign agitation for all of the violence.

Posted by Sneaze 2007-03-22 04:22|| 2007-03-22 04:22|| Front Page Top

#6 The Iraqis had been for a generation and a half under the kind of totalitarian dictatorship that reduces puppies to shivering in the corner and piddling themselves, afraid both to do and to not do. There is no way they were ready to take on ruling themselves immediately following the invasion, or even as soon as they did. A longer session with training wheels would have prevented all this Maliki malarky, as would have seriously closing the borders on all sides -- Sneaze is right about foreign agitation. But they're getting there anyway, and I try to remember not to let perfection get in the way of good enough to be going on with.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-03-22 07:17|| 2007-03-22 07:17|| Front Page Top

#7 "The Iraqis had been for a generation and a half under the kind of totalitarian dictatorship that reduces puppies to shivering in the corner and piddling themselves, afraid both to do and to not do. There is no way they were ready to take on ruling themselves immediately following the invasion, or even as soon as they did. A longer session with training wheels would have prevented all this Maliki malarky"

The people I think Bolton is saying he would have handed power to would have been the various exiles, plus the Kurds, not the folks whod been living under Saddams rule (with some exceptions) basically the guys who were on the Iraqi governing council.

In retrospect the corner solutions look better - EITHER we should have given them power right away, and avoided the perception of being the occupier OR we should have kept the training wheels on MUCH longer. What we actually did was fall between the two chairs - kept the CPA long enough to be seen as occupiers, but then turned over power and held elections well before any real change in society had taken place. Of course to make keeping the training wheels on longer make sense, we would have needed a larger armed force in Iraq (so we could do without Iraqi forces on the front lines as long as necessary) and a more intense commitment of US civilian employees, and of US funds. IE we would have had to prepared to play like serious imperialists (at least for a few years) for a variety of reasons, from lefty anti-imperialism to right wing hostility to nation building, to Rummys view of military transformation, we were NOT going to do that. Given that, the strategy Bolton is talking about now looks appealing.

But we are where we are.

Posted by liberalhawk 2007-03-22 10:06|| 2007-03-22 10:06|| Front Page Top

#8 We've done this approximately right. With a premature hand-off, there would have been a Sunni Arab coup within a year.

Posted by ghostcat">ghostcat 2007-03-22 14:02|| 2007-03-22 14:02|| Front Page Top

23:48 USN, ret.
23:45 JosephMendiola
23:43 JosephMendiola
23:42 USN, ret.
23:41 Frank G
23:40 Frank G
23:38 Shipman
23:34 49 Pan
23:24 WTF
23:16 SteveS
23:03 3dc
23:00 Jackal
22:59 OldSpook
22:57 ed
22:56 OldSpook
22:53 trailing wife
22:53 Jackal
22:52 3dc
22:52 OldSpook
22:50 OldSpook
22:46 OldSpook
22:43 OldSpook
22:42 OldSpook
22:42 Zhang Fei