|
Interesting Personal Experience from Iraq
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
It's just this guys own personal experiences from his limited time over there. Like snopes said, there's no way to confirm his experiences, but I would tend to agree that not everything that happens over there is "newsworthy". Anyway just thought it was interesting to share.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/walter.asp |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
It's just this guys own personal experiences from his limited time over there. Like snopes said, there's no way to confirm his experiences, but I would tend to agree that not everything that happens over there is "newsworthy". Anyway just thought it was interesting to share.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/walter.asp |
heart warming, thanks
| quote: |
I submit that just because we can't do everything doesn't mean that we should do nothing.
|
|
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| I believe that ultimately the bridge between whether you supported the war in Iraq or not, is are you prepared to move forward, if your interest is more in attacking the U.S. probably not, if it is in the interest of the Iraqis primarily, then yes. Everyone knew the French, Germans and Russians were doing dirty business with Saddam, but do they care no, after all the Iraqis were content with their pitiful excuse of a dictator called Saddam Hussein according to the French, German and Russian approach, now they want back in Iraq through the auspices of Kofi Annan and the U.N. Ultimately Iraq belongs in the hands of Iraqis without the U.S. French, Russians or German snake companies that will plunder what they can from it for their corportate profits. That is why I laugh when people say the U.S wants oil in Iraq-Doesn't the French and Germans as well as Russian companies that have interests in Iraq. Its simply one big circle of international vultures, remove the U.S and the others will step right in. |
|
|
| fred kruger |
remove the us and the free iraq will self destruct within 12 months.
building up a country takes ages.
think of europe after wo2 and how long it took to rebuild it!!
it takes time and patience. |
|
|
| Renegade |
This is part of what I wrote on another forum (there are embedded links in the text as well, which don't show up too well on these forums):
| quote: | Undoubtedly the "humanitarian" angle stands as the only legitimate causus bellum presented by the coalition in the build-up to this war, but whether its legitimacy is a sufficient cause for war is another matter altogether.
Pre-war there were just as many reasons to oppose the war on humanitarian grounds as there were to accept it on humanitarian grounds, and while the death toll does not yet quite reflect some of the pre-war predictions (which some suggested may rise as high as 250,000) there is still a still a large cost to pay for this freedom. Iraq Body Count has so far tallied a total of somewhere between 7,500 and 9,000 violent deaths - that is, deaths as a direct result of gunshot wounds and military explosions. In addition to this, we must take into account account the military deaths associated with the war (at least 2320 in a single operation in Baghdad alone), non-violent deaths incurred as a result of the war (lack of electricity, clean water and adequate health-care nation wide during the campaign, as well as for several months afterwards, in extreme weather conditions) and deaths not yet tallied as a result of difficult access to pertinent information (the civilian death toll stood at less than 2000 immediately after the conclusion of the war and has only grown - and continues to grow - since information from Iraqi hospitals and agencies has become in any way available) or deaths that have been inadequately reported (IBC has a fairly strict methodology of determining which deaths are included in the tally and which aren't). All in all, one cannot deny that there has been a heavy price to pay in order to secure this "freedom", arguments about whether this price is justified or not aside.
Further more, we should not be so naive as to believe that the removal of Saddam Hussein marks the beginning and the end of the humanitarian campaign. While few would be unhappy to see the back of Saddam Hussein or his appalling human rights record, there is - as I alluded to in my previous post - a lot of doubt concerning the future peace and prosperity of Iraq, as well as the acheivement of the "rights" you listed above. For a case history of what happens when a brutal, Stalinist dictator - responsible for holding several distinct ethnic groups together under a single nation for several decades - departs, one need only view the history of post-Tito Yugoslavia. The point of view which implies that the departure of Saddam Hussein automatically means a return to "peace and prosperity" is thus fallicious for several reasons.
As I said earlier, I doubt the Americans' commitment to democracy. I believe that a democracy in the sense we normally use the word (that is, in a distinctly western, invididualistic sense) is neither in the best interests of the Iraqi people (given the ethnic diversity and how the term "democracy" is usually applied in the Arab world, a series of smaller, semi-autonomous governments is preferable to the largely centralised governmental systems of the western world) or the world at large (an alliance between the Shiite theocracies of Iraq and Iran - the likely result of a "western-style" democracy - is a dangerous proposition indeed). Besides the "infeasability" of democracy in Iraq, one must also consider whether the US administration have demonstrated any genuine intent to install a genuine democracy of any sort. When questioned about the future of Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld said (and I'm paraphrasing as accurately as possible, as I cannot find a direct quote): "If you're asking whether it's going to become an Islamic theocracy, then no. We won't let that happen.". An Islamic theocracy, though, is likely to be the result of a democratic vote in Iraq - thus the US find themselves in a catch 22 situation. The goal of a democratic Iraq and the goal of preventing the ascention of Islamic theocrats into power are mutually exclusive aims.
Nonetheless, this is purely speculation. At the moment Ahmed Chalabi - the man largely tipped pre-war to be "installed" by the US administration after the occuptation - is highly active in Iraqi politics (despite the fact that - having lived outside of the nation for around 40 years - he's about as Iraqi as I am) and the formation of the new Iraqi administration. If Chalabi is installed as the leader of Iraq (or even just in a high governmental position) at some point in the near future, then the US will be putting a convicted criminal (he was arrested for embezzling millions of dollars during his time as a business-man in Jordan, and is likely to be arrested again should he step into any Arabic nation outside of US-controlled Iraq) into power, despite strong evidence from the CIA that he is hated by the majority of the Iraqi people. Similarly, it is quite clear that he is detested by the vast majority of Middle-Eastern Arabs in general, with one Arabic politician declaring that if he is left in power in Iraq that the Iraqi people "will tear him apart".
Moving on, predictions made by Iraqi opposition parties about the US discarding democracy in favour of a military government seem to be coming, in some way, true. To quote the article:
"The infrastructure of Saddam's ruling Baath party would remain largely intact, with the top two officials in each Iraqi ministry replaced by US military officers.
'The plan is bizarre. It is Baathism with an American face,' said Makiya, an Iraqi author and professor at Brandeis University in Massachusetts.
Have we not seen a huge amount of the Baathists being recalled into the current Iraqi administration, which would give the perspective of this Iraqi some credence? Do we have any reason to believe that the US may have shifted from this perspective to a more "pro-democratic" stance over the past 8-9 months? Or, to put it in terms the pro-capitalist pragmatists may understand, is there any evidence available at all that would suggest that the US would be prepared to spend $US 80 billion (and that's only so far) removing Saddam Hussein and rebuilding Iraq, only to take the chance of putting the future of Iraq in the hands of the Iraqi people, who may - heaven forbid - elect someone generally antithetical to the American cause? It's a large risk - do you honestly believe that the neo-cons would be prepared to take it? Either way, all we know is that the worst-case scenario predictions about the much hated Ahmed Chalabi being placed undemocratically into power above a government comprised, primarily, of the much hated Baathist regime are beginning to come true. Take that as you wish.
So the point of all this was to demonstrate that merely because Saddam Hussein has been ousted from power, the justification for war on "humanitarian" reasons has not yet been made legitimate. Before we can say it has been made legitimate, we first need to assess whether the costs of war (in both humanitarian and pecuniary terms) outweigh the benfits and about whether the these humanitarian "rights" we speak of are likely to be filled by the new Iraqi regime. Ultimately, time will be the only judge (perhaps it would be better to have a discussion on the merits of this war in 5 years time) but, given the evidence I've presented here, I'm not confident. |
And a previous post:
| quote: | Contrary to what many would like to believe, opposition towards the removal of the Baathist regime (and to a lesser extent, the Taliban regime) was not a stance of complicity towards the travesties committed by these regimes, but rather a fundamental "mistrust" of the US - acting as a power with a self-confessed interest in hegemony (be it political, economic, cultural or anything else) - to ensure that the interests of the local people would be upheld in the formation of new governments. You may argue that this "mistrust" is misguided (or merely go the way of an Andrew Bolt in suggesting that this mistrust - or any other disagreement pertaining to US policy - is based purely in neurotic anti-Americanism) but given the case history the US has in rebuilding nations and installing leader, I should think that my fellow anti-war advocates and I are quite justified in "distrusting" the US in this capacity. Besides, how can I trust an administration to spread democracy and liberty in the Islamic Middle-East when it is doing its best to undermine democracy (Florida?) and liberties (the PATRIOT Act?) within its own nation?
If the action against the Baathist regime were initiated and/or sanctioned by the UN then - for the simple reason that I have more faith in the UN than the US to carry out the impartial, selfless recontruction of a new nation - I probably would have supported a war (in some capacity) aimed at removing the Baathist regime in the hope of installing a better system of administration for the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein committed intolerable acts of cruelty against his own people, and his ousting is a blessing (just as the ousting of Kim Jong-Il or Robert Mugabe would be a blessing) but I have little faith in the current US administration to adequately fill his void with an administration chosen by the Iraqi people, to act in the best interests of the Iraqi people. If the underlying motivations for the US invasion are not in any way based on hegemonic principles, why the refusal to allow the UN more control in the rebuilding of the nation? Why am I hearing so much about the imminent implementation of free-market capitalism (as though it were, in absolute terms, the only preferable market system for the Iraqi people?) in Iraq? Why am I still hearing about the "domino theory" of democratic principles, 30 years after the failed Vietnam campaign and 15 years after the collapse - not through warfare but through isolationism - of state-based communism?
The US, pre-war, never gave any insight into their plans for post-war Iraq. This undoubtedly has much to do with a lack of adequate preparation in this area (by Paul Wolfiwitz's own admission) but the absense of concrete plans for the future of Iraq still worries me. They speak of democracy as though it were a metaphysical entity, permeating all matters of human conduct, yet I doubt they'd be willing to hand over Iraq to a true democracy for fear of allowing a Shia goverment into power. I also doubt they've spent much time considering the general difference between the individualistic conception democracy of the west and the collectivist conception of democracy in the Arab world. Furthermore, how do they plan on keeping what is essentially three different nations (comprising of the Kurds in the north, the Sunnis in the centre and the Shiites in the south) together in the absense of a brutal dictator? The silence about how they plan to address these issues is worrying.
Now you may chastise me for my lack of faith in the US's commitment to the Iraqi people, in which case allow me to ask you:
1) Based on 5 decades of nation building, why do you have faith that this administration, at this point in time, in this unstable region of the world is likely to install a stable system of government, supported by the Iraqi people?
2) Based on the absense of any enunciation of a post-war plan prior to the beginning of hostilities (still largely absent as of now) on what grounds should I have/have had faith in the US's proclaimed aim to install a system of government supported by and benefitting all Iraqi people?
3) Given that the "liberation of the Iraqi people" wasn't cited as a major pretext upon which a just war could be waged until it became clear that the claims of ties to Al-Qaida and of possessing large stockpiles of WMDs were false, on what grounds should I believe that the US were willing to spend $87 billion merely to satisfy the altruistic aim of installing a new system of government for the benefit of the Iraqi people (the same Iraqi people who suffered under sanctions enforced by successive US administrations for 12 years)? Would I really be so naive as to believe that the US would spend such an amount of money just to see the smiles on the faces of ordinary Iraqi people? Surely the US would have only undertaken this action under the pretext that it is likely to acheive its own aims (many of which may be mutually exclusive to those of the Iraqi people) in the process? |
Just thought I'd post this as my take on the reconstruction of Iraq and on the "humanitarian war" in general, while we're on the topic - is this the first real topic we've had devoted to post-war Iraq btw? So, am I just being another "leftist doomsayer" or what? ;) |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
This is part of what I wrote on another forum (there are embedded links in the text as well, which don't show up too well on these forums):
And a previous post:
Just thought I'd post this as my take on the reconstruction of Iraq and on the "humanitarian war" in general, while we're on the topic - is this the first real topic we've had devoted to post-war Iraq btw? So, am I just being another "leftist doomsayer" or what? ;) |
Wow, big posts Renegade, words so small ... Anyway my response may have to be spread out over the day ... I'm actually busy.
| quote: |
Undoubtedly the "humanitarian" angle stands as the only legitimate causus bellum presented by the coalition in the build-up to this war, but whether its legitimacy is a sufficient cause for war is another matter altogether.
|
Yea I don't think you'll find very many people nowadays who will argue that the reasons supplied by Bush for the war have been in any way whatsover legitmisized by the evidence uncovered after the fact. I agree that the humanitarian angle can only be used to determine the 'worth' of the entire affair as opposed to the legitimacy of the entire affair (were the number of people who died from the war 'worth' the end of the regime?). The whole legitimacy part has been pretty much shot down since the humanitarian angle was never the primary reason for the whole affair.
| quote: |
Pre-war there were just as many reasons to oppose the war on humanitarian grounds as there were to accept it on humanitarian grounds, and while the death toll does not yet quite reflect some of the pre-war predictions (which some suggested may rise as high as 250,000) there is still a still a large cost to pay for this freedom. Iraq Body Count has so far tallied a total of somewhere between 7,500 and 9,000 violent deaths - that is, deaths as a direct result of gunshot wounds and military explosions. In addition to this, we must take into account account the military deaths associated with the war (at least 2320 in a single operation in Baghdad alone), non-violent deaths incurred as a result of the war (lack of electricity, clean water and adequate health-care nation wide during the campaign, as well as for several months afterwards, in extreme weather conditions) and deaths not yet tallied as a result of difficult access to pertinent information (the civilian death toll stood at less than 2000 immediately after the conclusion of the war and has only grown - and continues to grow - since information from Iraqi hospitals and agencies has become in any way available) or deaths that have been inadequately reported (IBC has a fairly strict methodology of determining which deaths are included in the tally and which aren't). All in all, one cannot deny that there has been a heavy price to pay in order to secure this "freedom", arguments about whether this price is justified or not aside.
|
True there have been a significant amount of deaths associated with the conflict in one way or another. However, speaking from an economic sense (I can't help it) when considering the 'worth' of the war one must weigh the complete opportunity cost of NOT invading. That being said, one must weigh the number of lives lost as a result of the conflict against the number of lives lost over the perpetuity of the rest of the duration of the regime. Now granted, trying to measure that number to any degree of accuracy is simply impossible, however, in conjecture I would think that that number would be a lot higher. Not only would you have the direct impact of the regime on civilians (mass killings, brutalizing, abusing, etc.), but then you have the secondary effects of the regime's existence on the population. Secondary effects being a lack of committment to care for the health of people, social welfare programs, etc. Then again we are also assuming that the new Iraq will address all these secondary conditions however, I think that over the long term, these conditions will be allieviating if through anything, by the removal of sanctions.
Arggg don't write anything ... I have to go to lunch. tbc
Continuation:
| quote: |
Further more, we should not be so naive as to believe that the removal of Saddam Hussein marks the beginning and the end of the humanitarian campaign. While few would be unhappy to see the back of Saddam Hussein or his appalling human rights record, there is - as I alluded to in my previous post - a lot of doubt concerning the future peace and prosperity of Iraq, as well as the acheivement of the "rights" you listed above. For a case history of what happens when a brutal, Stalinist dictator - responsible for holding several distinct ethnic groups together under a single nation for several decades - departs, one need only view the history of post-Tito Yugoslavia. The point of view which implies that the departure of Saddam Hussein automatically means a return to "peace and prosperity" is thus fallicious for several reasons.
|
Granted, things are not all hunky dory now that Saddam is gone, but I think that we can both agree that the removal of Saddam marks a HUGE beginning of the humanitarian campaign. Now as you stated, this is nowhere near the end of the campaign, however, one can likely predict that things will progress towards a better state of affairs. I think this has been reflected by the attitudes of most of the Iraqi people as a whole who stated in that gallup that they thought they were better off with the removal of Saddam. I don't think that the absence of Saddam in Iraq will be remotely similar to the absence of Tito in Yugoslavia. The primary reason being that despite the different religious ethnicites, these ethnicities do not possess individual nationalistic movements with the the exception of the kurds. And even taking the northern kurds into consideration, there are very few Iraqis clamoring for and subscribing to separatist beliefs. Most Iraqis, regardless of ethnic background consider themselves inherentely Iraqi.
| quote: |
As I said earlier, I doubt the Americans' commitment to democracy. I believe that a democracy in the sense we normally use the word (that is, in a distinctly western, invididualistic sense) is neither in the best interests of the Iraqi people (given the ethnic diversity and how the term "democracy" is usually applied in the Arab world, a series of smaller, semi-autonomous governments is preferable to the largely centralised governmental systems of the western world) or the world at large (an alliance between the Shiite theocracies of Iraq and Iran - the likely result of a "western-style" democracy - is a dangerous proposition indeed). Besides the "infeasability" of democracy in Iraq, one must also consider whether the US administration have demonstrated any genuine intent to install a genuine democracy of any sort. When questioned about the future of Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld said (and I'm paraphrasing as accurately as possible, as I cannot find a direct quote): "If you're asking whether it's going to become an Islamic theocracy, then no. We won't let that happen.". An Islamic theocracy, though, is likely to be the result of a democratic vote in Iraq - thus the US find themselves in a catch 22 situation. The goal of a democratic Iraq and the goal of preventing the ascention of Islamic theocrats into power are mutually exclusive aims.
|
Well actually I would disagree with your assessment of America's committment to a democratic Iraq. If anything, the US is MORE committed to setting up a democratic than the UN or France in a wierd sort of way. Basically the differences between the American master plan and the UN master plan is that the UN wants America to immediately transition over more/all power to the iraqi interim government council within a few months or whatever. The US instead wants the interim government to draft a constitution and THEN democratic elections will be held for the permenant government to assume all powers in running the country. So you see, the difference in opinion is that the US desires to transfer control of power over to the democratically elected Iraqi government with a constitution rather than the Iraqi governing council. Now, we enter the question of what type of democratically elected government this is and whether it would be good for the Iraqi people. Now I think it's pretty obvious that most Iraqis do NOT want a secular state. I think it's probably pretty obvious that most Iraqis will vote in a government that is overwhelmingly muslim. I don't think this is in dispute and I don't think the US will necessarily put a stop to this. However, simply because a government is not secular does not mean that it is necessarily a theocracy in the sense that we are used to (such as Iran). THere will still be democratic processes to elect officials and if the public chooses to elect officials who may be less than secular who is the rest of the world to say no and decide for them who governs them? That's why the US is so keen on having a constitution drafted ... to define the control of the government, the balances of powers in the government, the rights of citizens, etc.. The state may not be as secular as a western democracy so to speak, but the goal is to maintain tolerance, basic freedoms, and rights under whatever form of democratic government is elected. Therefore the idea of a democracy and avoiding a consolidation of power into a theocracy are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
ok tbc later ... must work
Continued:
| quote: |
Nonetheless, this is purely speculation. At the moment Ahmed Chalabi - the man largely tipped pre-war to be "installed" by the US administration after the occuptation - is highly active in Iraqi politics (despite the fact that - having lived outside of the nation for around 40 years - he's about as Iraqi as I am) and the formation of the new Iraqi administration. If Chalabi is installed as the leader of Iraq (or even just in a high governmental position) at some point in the near future, then the US will be putting a convicted criminal (he was arrested for embezzling millions of dollars during his time as a business-man in Jordan, and is likely to be arrested again should he step into any Arabic nation outside of US-controlled Iraq) into power, despite strong evidence from the CIA that he is hated by the majority of the Iraqi people. Similarly, it is quite clear that he is detested by the vast majority of Middle-Eastern Arabs in general, with one Arabic politician declaring that if he is left in power in Iraq that the Iraqi people "will tear him apart".
|
Well, I could be wrong but I don't think that the US desires to leave him in control of all the power. Like I said before, perhaps as a member of the interim government yes, but ideally the end goal is to draft a constitution as soon as possible so elections can occur. In actuality the US has been trying to speed up this process as soon as possible because they recognize the unrest in Iraq will only grow the longer they remained:
"Officials in Iraq have warned it will take at least a year before a new constitution for the country can be drawn up.
The news will be a blow to the US, which had hoped to complete such a document within six months in order to pass control of the country over to the Iraqis."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3153732.stm
But as you can see the governing body and officials have warned that drafting such a document would take more time.
| quote: |
Moving on, predictions made by Iraqi opposition parties about the US discarding democracy in favour of a military government seem to be coming, in some way, true. To quote the article:
"The infrastructure of Saddam's ruling Baath party would remain largely intact, with the top two officials in each Iraqi ministry replaced by US military officers.
'The plan is bizarre. It is Baathism with an American face,' said Makiya, an Iraqi author and professor at Brandeis University in Massachusetts.
Have we not seen a huge amount of the Baathists being recalled into the current Iraqi administration, which would give the perspective of this Iraqi some credence? Do we have any reason to believe that the US may have shifted from this perspective to a more "pro-democratic" stance over the past 8-9 months? Or, to put it in terms the pro-capitalist pragmatists may understand, is there any evidence available at all that would suggest that the US would be prepared to spend $US 80 billion (and that's only so far) removing Saddam Hussein and rebuilding Iraq, only to take the chance of putting the future of Iraq in the hands of the Iraqi people, who may - heaven forbid - elect someone generally antithetical to the American cause? It's a large risk - do you honestly believe that the neo-cons would be prepared to take it? Either way, all we know is that the worst-case scenario predictions about the much hated Ahmed Chalabi being placed undemocratically into power above a government comprised, primarily, of the much hated Baathist regime are beginning to come true. Take that as you wish.
|
I think the reason that some of the Baathists have been restored to power is because many of them were merely party officials in order to attain their jobs (rather than having genuine support for Saddam) and many officials have been restored simply because nobody else knows how to do their jobs. If anything, I think the Americans were rash and unrealistic in trying to remove ALL elements of the Baathists party from positions of power. If they are all removed who's going to know how to do the things that they did?
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1457990 (sorry it's an npr audio article)
Ahhh crap back to work ... tbc (damn you for making this so long) |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vesa
His support for this war is fallacious logic. After I've read dozens of similar pro-war arguments, I'm convinced that every Western person should be taught formal logic at school.
Look:
1) Saddam is a monster -> there's a need to topple Saddam
2) geopolitical interest in Iraq -> there's a need to topple Saddam
-------------------------------------------------------
3) Saddam is a monster = geopolitical interest in Iraq
3 can't be deduced from 1 and 2, as can be seen from the following simplified form:
1) A -> C
2) B -> C
----------
3) A = B
In layman terms, if two groups have a common interest, it doesn't follow that one's actions automatically benefit the other one.
In even more clear layman terms, if Saddam is a monster, it doesn't follow that Neocons' PNAC plans are the best way to end Saddam's cruelties.
The invasion would have been much less bloody if the only goal had been to topple Saddam. The Middle-East wouldn't be on the verge of a regional war now. If you want Saddam out, then you take Saddam out, devise a simple exit plan, and leave. But if the goal is to harass Iran and Syria, then it's obvious that the invasion is going to be much more bloody and chaotic.
|
Huh? Why are you bringing in neo-con ambitions into this guy's opinion? His intent appears not to justify the war exactly as it happened. Obviously he disagrees with its legitimacy since he disagreed with the war from the beginning. He's arguing that from the aspect of human rights, from what he's seen, he's ariven at the conclusion that Saddam should have been removed from power years ago. So therefore, there is only proof 1 not proof 1, 2, and 3. |
|
|
| occrider |
| Ahh ok I took it differentely. I thought that the guy acknowledged the fact that we went in for the purposes of our personal and strategic interests (which he disagreed with since he didn't initially support the war), yet after seeing Saddam's brutality he added that despite the fact that we went for our personal strategic interests, he believed that it was the morally correct decision based upon what he saw. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vesa
I doubt that the UN/France block genuinely wants to transfer power to the Iraqi Interim Council because it would automatically increase the power of Neocon-puppet Chalabi, who is UN/France's worst rival inside Iraq. UN/France don't want Chalabi to have even limited interim rule because he might stack up the Iraqi Administration with Neocon-puppet officials, just like the Cheney interim rule stacked up the US Administration with Neocon officials before Bush took over from Clinton. For example, Chalabi might appoint Iraqi oil and commerce officials who'll make sure that France will never get permits easily.
Instead, UN/France would like to arrange general elections in Iraq immediately, leading to a Shiite takeover, thus minimizing the future influence of INC and Neocons. SCIRI would probably win the elections, and would be a natural ally of UN. UN/France and SCIRI could together minimize American control over the area.
However, if the UN/France block is forced to choose between the current American decision-making and the bureaucracy of the Iraqi Interim Council, they might indeed choose the Interim Council bureaucracy if it slows down American military decisions in the area. Slower decisions would mean that the Pentagon Spec-Ops (Task Force 20) can't easily make any unilateral raids inside UN/France allies Syria and Iran.
|
I disagree. I think that the UN and France's position in general have been to hand over whatever power the US government has over to an Iraqi government, ANY Iraqi government in order to acheive greater UN involvement or their ideaological opposition to US hegemony goals in this entire affair:
| quote: |
"Some countries - including France - have called for a rapid timetable for Iraqi self-rule as a pre-condition for offering assistance, a move the US administration has ruled out.
Mr Powell told the New York Times that Washington had already asked the governing council to estimate how long it would take it to draw up a constitution which would lead to elections and a new government.
"If they take forever to give us the answer to that question, then we've got a problem," he said.
"But I think they'll give us an answer fairly quickly."
He said the constitution drafted by Iraqi leaders would spell out whether Iraq should be governed by a presidential or parliamentary system and clear the way for elections and the installation of a new government in 2004.
Only then would the US transfer authority to Iraq itself.
UN 'downsizing'
Mr Powell added that granting authority to an unelected Iraqi Government would undermine its legitimacy in the eyes of the world and set it up for attack from Saddam Hussein loyalists.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3141490.stm
|
You stated that France and the UN do NOT want an immediate transfer of power to the governing council, however:
| quote: |
The United States has drawn up a new draft United Nations resolution on Iraq, which it is discussing with other members of the Security Council.
The US state department says the draft takes into account objections to an earlier version of the resolution raised by a number of countries - particularly France.
The text calls for a strengthened role for the UN and a progressive handover of power to Iraqi institutions.
.
.
.
Our correspondent says it invites the Iraqi Governing Council to provide, in consultation with the US-led administration and the UN, a timetable and a programme for the drafting of a new constitution and the holding of elections.
The revised version also seeks to transform the US-led coalition force into a multi-national force under unified command.
But it adds that the responsibilities of this force should be reviewed when an internationally recognised representative government is established by the people of Iraq.
.
.
.
France has led objections to the US operation in Iraq, calling for a timeframe for the transfer of power from the US-led Coalition Authority to the Iraqi Governing Council.
|
So essentially US policy is caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one end we have the US trying to avoid Renegade's predicament of a democratically elected theocracy, and on the other end you have your theories of the US stalling elections in order to establish the governing council as the sole power. I'm not quite sure how you would like the situation to play out.
Well since I've read the US draft resolution they've supplied to the UN, I think the US is following the correct plan of action by addressing Renegade's concerns of a theocracy first and foremost. A constitution is the first step and only THEN followed by countrywide elections for a permenant system of government. I don't think that the US is going to set up a puppet government according to the consittution because in the draft resolution itself it states that:
| quote: |
7. Supports the Governing Council's efforts to mobilise the people of Iraq, including by the appointment of a cabinet of ministers and a preparatory constitutional committee to lead a process in which the Iraqi people will progressively take control of their own affairs;
8. Affirms that the administration of Iraq will be progressively undertaken by the evolving structures of the Iraqi interim administration, and to that end, calls upon the Authority to continue its practice of transferring as quickly as practicable effective and substantial executive responsibility;
9. Invites the Governing Council to provide in co-operation with the Authority and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General a timetable and a programme for the drafting of a new constitution for Iraq and for the holding of democratic elections under that constitution;
10. Requests the Authority, in cooperation with the Special Representative of the Secretary General, to assist the Governing Council in the implementation of the above timetable and program, including by facilitating national dialogue and consensus building on the political transition process, the establishment of electoral processes, and assisting the Iraqi interim administration to rejoin the international community;
11. Requests the Secretary General to ensure that the resources of the United Nations and associated organisations are available, if requested by the Iraqi Governing Council, to help establish an electoral process in Iraq in furtherance of the programme provided by the Governing Council in paragraph nine above, and encourages other organisations with expertise in this area to support the Iraqi Governing Council, if requested;
12. Requests the Secretary General to report to the Security Council on the work of the Special Representative with respect to his responsibilities under this resolution, including the development of a timetable and programme under paragraph nine, and the implementation thereof;
13. Determines that the provision of security and stability is essential to the successful completion of the political process as outlined in paragraph nine above and to the ability of the United Nations to contribute effectively to that process and the implementation of resolution 1483 (2003), and authorises a multinational force under unified command to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq,
including for the purpose of ensuring necessary conditions for the implementation of the timetable and programme as well as to contribute to the security of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, the Governing Council of Iraq and other institutions of the Iraqi interim administration, and key humanitarian and economic infrastructure;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3157496.stm
|
It seems apparent that the US desires a definite UN role in the establishment of the constiution and some influence in the creation of the Iraqi system of government ... as LONG as this transition of power occurs as a result of democratic elections FOLLOWING the establishment of a constitution with the ultimate objectives of avoiding a theocracy style state. |
|
|
| rupert |
Why are americans always so optimistic?
Its painfully obvious that Iraq is going to tear itself apart with the USA powerless to stop it.
Iraq will be the next Lebanon.
The best thing the US could have done is cut a deal with Iran and the Shia's of Iraq and co-opt them into fighting the Sunni Islamists and or Baathists who keep attacking them and then bail out of the country with a secret deal with Iran that US companies get preference on the oil in tacit acceptance of Iran's influence over Iraq.
But no the USA has obtained help from Poland and Ukraine. I am very sorry but I doubt anyone in the Middle East is scared of the mighty Polish or Ukrainian army.
I was talking to someone from Ukraine who told me that some of the soldiers refused to go until the Ukraine government decided to increase their pay to the princely sum of $600 a month. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by rupert
Why are americans always so optimistic?
|
For the same reason why australians are so overly pessimistic? |
|
|
|
|
