| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| A (newly) sovereign Iraq |
| 2004-06-02 |
| David Warren’s latest, via LGF comments. EFL. The formal transfer of power from Paul Bremer’s occupation authority to the new Iraqi government waits till the end of the month, but with the self-dissolution of the interim Iraqi Governing Council, we have witnessed an effective transfer. The region’s governments, including nefarious Iran and Syria, will know it’s too late to sabotage the hand-off -- because it has already occurred, by surprise, ahead of deadline. No one else will say this, so I will. The Bush administration has handled the transfer of power in Iraq more cleverly than anyone expected, including me. The summoning of the U.N. envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, looked like very bad news. In grim moments, I believed the Bush people were cynically using him to wash their hands of Iraq, and as it were, dump the quagmire back in the swamp of the U.N. Instead, they froze the ground beneath Brahimi’s feet, and skated rings around him, haggling behind his back with Iraq’s new political heavyweights to leave him endorsing a fait accompli. If it were not vulgar, I would say the Bushies suckered the U.N. into signing on to the New Iraq through Brahimi. On the ground in Iraq, it is obvious from the range of sources the Western media do not bother with, that things are still going exceedingly well. There are more than 8,000 municipalities in Iraq, and serious violence in only five or six. Free elections for local governments have taken place or probably will in most of the others. The foreign troops are already out of sight and out of mind in much of the country, where crops are growing, generators are humming, and people are going about their lives. RTWT, as they say. |
| Posted by:someone |
| #3 Excellent point by Verlaine. I would add that if Sadr and the Fallujah savages from April represented the best Syria and Iran could bring, then we, and the Iraqis, are in very good shape vs. reasonable expectations. Probably too good to be true. |
| Posted by: JAB 2004-06-02 10:35:34 PM |
| #2 Concur on "use" of the UN for our own (and Iraq's) purposes. Someone with inside skinny might know for sure, but specifically I read the introduction of bogus "UN mediation" as a smokescreen allowing Sistani et al to save face while abandoning their stupid insistence on instantaneous elections -- which they did abandon. Meanwhile, anyone notice that the "advisory council" slated to be SELECTED in July will probably approximate the caucus-selected group originally proposed by CPA? The new group will not be the executive authority, and the original plan was clearly excessively complicated, but it's not a stretch to say that Bremer's original formula has been realized in its essentials, and Sistani's objections all recanted -- all with the thinnest veneer of UN involvement. Iraq and the coalition are the worse for Sistani's bungling, but such is life. The prime objective was achieved a year ago, and things have gone reasonably well since, within the constraints of the dysfunctional Iraq we have to work with. Of course, that's only clear if you have any knowledge of history, military affairs, strategy, and economics -- so the media and most the "experts" it quotes and many opposition pols will continue to labor in their own special darkness. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2004-06-02 10:28:46 PM |
| #1 I would say the Bushies suckered the U.N. into signing on to the New Iraq through Brahimi. Thats my assessment also despite the spin of the media. |
| Posted by: Phil B 2004-06-02 7:21:02 PM |