US transfers sovereignty ahead of schedule...

[Uprising]

U.S. transfers sovereignty to Iraqi government ahead of schedule
Reuters News Service
RESOURCES

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The U.S.-led coalition transferred sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government today, speeding up the move by two days in an apparent bid to surprise insurgents who may have tried to sabotage the step toward self rule.

Legal documents handing over sovereignty were handed over by U.S. governor L. Paul Bremer to interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi in a ceremony in the heavily guarded Green Zone.

"This is a historical day," Allawi said during the ceremony. "We feel we are capable of controlling the security situation."

Bremer will leave Iraq sometime today, coalition officials said on condition of anonymity.

The ceremony took place in a formal room with Louis XIV furniture. Bremer sat on the couch with Allawi and President Ghazi al-Yawer.

"We'd like to express our thanks to the coalition," al-Yawer said. "There is no way to turn back now."

In Istanbul, Turkey, where President Bush and other leaders were attending a NATO summit, the U.S. administration said it was pleased by the early transfer and said it was a proud day for the Iraqi people.

"You have said, and we agreed, that you are ready for sovereignty," Bremer said in the ceremony. "I will leave Iraq confident in its future."

Allawi said he requested that the sovereignty be transferred earlier, reflecting a preference to have Iraqis control their own destiny as soon as possible. Last Thursday, the coalition transferred the final 11 of the 26 government ministries to full Iraqi control, meaning Iraqis were already handling the day to day operations of the interim administration.

Bremer went on a series of farewell visits to areas throughout the country over the past few days.

With the transfer, the Iraqis now face the daunting task of securing law and order with the help of about 135,000 U.S. troops and about 20,000 more from other coalition countries.

"We have been laying down strategies for protecting our people," Allawi said after the ceremony, adding that he would spell out details at a news conference later.

"The blood that has been spilled in Iraq has been spilled for a very good reason," Allawi said, explaining that it was in the cause of democracy and freedom.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/topstory/2650758

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123961,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/28/iraq.handover/index.html

[Oski2005]

Here goes nothing.

[andymoon]

My wishes for a peaceful Iraq. I certainly hope Iraq can move forward without further bloodshed.

[4chuckie]

Sounds like a good idea. There has been so much terrorist activity going on over the last week or so I think it was likely they were planning to have a huge showing on the 30th. Honestly i don't know if this changes anything but the burden or responsibility gets shifted away from the US.

One question I have to you think the tactics being used in Iraq will change much now? Specifically since the US isn't in charge can the Iraqis (with the military support of the US) become more aggressive in hunting down the terorists.

[RocketMan Tex]

Let's see...."sovereignty" has been handed over to an appointed government whose Prime Minister is a former CIA operative.

Can you say "Manuel Noriega" children? I thought you could!

[Mulder]

Originally posted by Uprising
"This is a historical day," Allawi said during the ceremony. "We feel we are capable of controlling the security situation."

I wish this could be like a party where we hand the key master duties over to the Iraqis and turn and say "Thanks, we're just gonna take our boys and go now..." :(

[mc mark]

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20040626/ldb040627.gif

[RocketMan Tex]

This is a great day for the Iraqi people.

The sovereign Iraqi state of New Texaco was born today.

[ROXRAN]

This is a great day on the war on terror...we have completed phase 2 of our goals in Iraq, and now the possibilities and hope for the future of Iraq with elections will be assured...This is a great day for Bush as realized from voters...but the greatness lies with the people of Iraq and how the shining future is no longer a doubt, but a realistic and direct offering...

A new governmental process of a nation is now conceived, and I'm so proud of our troops, the people and our great President for enabling this day to happen!

NATO will now train Iraqi troops, and the internationalized support is practically complete as we have hoped for from the inception...

[basso]

rampant rumors (http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/013094.html) that zarqawi has been captured by iRaqi intelligence...

[ROXRAN]

Originally posted by basso
rampant rumors (http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/013094.html) that zarqawi has been captured by iRaqi intelligence...

Man, if true this would be such bad news for the backslapping liberals!...

[mc mark]

Originally posted by basso
rampant rumors (http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/013094.html) that zarqawi has been captured by iRaqi intelligence...

I believe that it's another of those "same name, wrong guy" sort of things.

But if they did have him great!

[Rocketman95]

Originally posted by ROXRAN
Man, if true this would be such bad news for the backslapping liberals!...

Just like a terrorist attack coordintated by Iraq and Al Qaeda before the war that killed thousands of people would've been like Christmas to the conservatives. :rolleyes:

[Rocket104]

Knock on wood and let's hope things go okay.

[rimrocker]

Originally posted by ROXRAN
Man, if true this would be such bad news for the backslapping liberals!...

Implied in that statement is that Conservatives would gain a political advantage from such an occurance. A similar refrain has been sounded in virtually every development in the WOT and yet Dems are accused of politicizing? I might add that I consider it a great danger to look at events that influence the world solely through the prism of domestic politics.

No Liberal, no Democrat, no conservative, no Republican, no rational Iraqi, no citizen of the World wants Zarq running around beheading people. If he's caught, we should all breathe a little easier... for a minute or two... then it's back to work. One of the criticisms that Liberals do aim at this administration is the fascination with the individual rather then than the cause. Saddam and Saddam's sons were behind the resistance, Zarq is causing our recent troubles, if we just get OBL things will be better, etc.

This administration is way too concerned with the tactics and has never developed a strategy to fighting the WOT (unless hoping that things work out OK is a strategy). Perceived short term domestic political advantages, such as reflected in the above post only reinforce this preference and probably delay the realization that a complete rethinking of how we are going about this needs to take place.

[Oski2005]

My ignore list is starting to come into a play more and more.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by ROXRAN
Man, if true this would be such bad news for the backslapping liberals!...

Needling people is one thing, but it's really bullsh-t of you to imply that "liberals" sympathize with a murderous thug like that.

Are you referring to the anti war, anti-bush family of Nicolas Berg when you say stuff like that? They're liberal I guess because they denouced the war, of course, Zarqawi cut their sons head off on worldwide TV, is it bad news for them?

I understand that you're making a point lately of trying to be provocative by making silly posts, but just stop, there's enough provocation around here already.

Originally posted by Oski2005
Here goes nothing.


Yup. :(

[Rocket River]

Originally posted by RocketMan Tex
This is a great day for the Iraqi people.

The sovereign Iraqi state of New Texaco was born today.
]
New Halliburton



Rocket RIver

[Faos]

Originally posted by SamFisher

I understand that you're making a point lately of trying to be provocative by making silly posts, but just stop, there's enough provocation around here already.



:rolleyes:

There you go again.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by Faos
This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here] .

And there you went!

[Faos]

Originally posted by SamFisher
And there you went!

There IS a God! (And as much as he would like to believe it, His name is not "Sam".)

[andymoon]

Originally posted by Faos
There IS a God! (And as much as he would like to believe it, His name is not "Sam".)

And not only is He not GWB, GWB doesn't know any more about God's will than I do.

[Faos]

Originally posted by andymoon
And not only is He not GWB, GWB doesn't know any more about God's will than I do.

Ok...now I'm really confused.

Oh, and thanks Andy for not adding me to your ignore list. And for the record no one is on my ignore list.

God bless America.

[mc mark]

Originally posted by Faos

God bless America.

But only if they're Republicans!

:p

[rimrocker]

Originally posted by Faos

God bless America.

If God sees fit to bestow some blessings on the United States, that will certainly upset the bleeding heart liberals and put them at a political disadvantage.

[robbie380]

yup i see iraq turning into a place that is totally safe for american companies. kind of like saudi arabia. ive never heard of workers being threatened or killed over there so i think this new halliburton and new texaco idea for iraq is great!! i mean they love us over there so it would be easy for those american companies to establish themselves!! GREAT THOUGHTS GUYS!!

[andymoon]

Originally posted by Faos
Ok...now I'm really confused.

Oh, and thanks Andy for not adding me to your ignore list. And for the record no one is on my ignore list.

God bless America.

So far, you haven't stooped to personal attacks and mindless parroting of RNC materials. Should that become your pattern, then sadly you will make my ignore list too.

It isn't too hard to avoid my ignore list, just come up with meaningfull dialogue rather than mindless vitriol.

[Trader_Jorge]

Let's face facts here -- the liberals wouldn't be reacting with such animosity if what Faos and Roxran were saying wasn't true. It's hitting home and it's striking a nerve with the liberals. The truth hurts.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by Faos
Ok...now I'm really confused.


You made the point that God is not Sam and I responded with the statement that GWB is ALSO not God and, in fact, doesn't have any clearer idea of God's will than I do.

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
Let's face facts here -- the liberals wouldn't be reacting with such animosity if what Faos and Roxran were saying wasn't true. It's hitting home and it's striking a nerve with the liberals. The truth hurts.

If true, this explains a lot. No one posts with more animosity here than Jorge, bama or Uncle Tim. Is it really because the truth hurts? Makes a lot of sense.

[Trader_Jorge]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
If true, this explains a lot. No one posts with more animosity here than Jorge, bama or Uncle Tim. Is it really because the truth hurts? Makes a lot of sense.

No Batman, you post with the most animosity by far. It's not even close.

My posts are filled with merriment. Ho ho ho!

[No Worries]

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
My posts are filled with merriment. Ho ho ho!
I agree. You post the funniest sh*t!!!

[GreenVegan76]

Yeah, "transferred."

[Faos]

Originally posted by andymoon
You made the point that God is not Sam and I responded with the statement that GWB is ALSO not God and, in fact, doesn't have any clearer idea of God's will than I do.

For the life of me I can't understand why you drug GWB into a discussion about Sam putting me on his ignore list. My reference to God was Sam's "almighty" attitude he tends to display at times. It's funny how some people complain about our rights being taken away in one thread but if someone else expresses their freedom of speech - and it doesn't go along with the thought of some others - they are put on a lame ignore list. But, hey, to each is own I guess.

[nyrocket]

Count me as one liberal who has some serious admiration for Zarqawi. I mean, how many other dead, peg-legged people do you know who have magically come back to life with no sign of gimp? He's Frosty the Snowman of the middle east!

[glynch]

Who Lost Iraq?
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: June 29, 2004






ARTICLE TOOLS


E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles








Columnist Page: Paul Krugman
Forum: Discuss This Column

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com








TIMES NEWS TRACKER



Topics
Alerts

Iraq




Bremer, L Paul III




Privatization








he formal occupation of Iraq came to an ignominious end yesterday with a furtive ceremony, held two days early to foil insurgent attacks, and a swift airborne exit for the chief administrator. In reality, the occupation will continue under another name, most likely until a hostile Iraqi populace demands that we leave. But it's already worth asking why things went so wrong.

The Iraq venture may have been doomed from the start — but we'll never know for sure because the Bush administration made such a mess of the occupation. Future historians will view it as a case study of how not to run a country.

Up to a point, the numbers in the Brookings Institution's invaluable Iraq Index tell the tale. Figures on the electricity supply and oil production show a pattern of fitful recovery and frequent reversals; figures on insurgent attacks and civilian casualties show a security situation that got progressively worse, not better; public opinion polls show an occupation that squandered the initial good will.

What the figures don't describe is the toxic mix of ideological obsession and cronyism that lie behind that dismal performance.

The insurgency took root during the occupation's first few months, when the Coalition Provisional Authority seemed oddly disengaged from the problems of postwar anarchy. But what was Paul Bremer III, the head of the C.P.A., focused on? According to a Washington Post reporter who shared a flight with him last June, "Bremer discussed the need to privatize government-run factories with such fervor that his voice cut through the din of the cargo hold."

Plans for privatization were eventually put on hold. But as he prepared to leave Iraq, Mr. Bremer listed reduced tax rates, reduced tariffs and the liberalization of foreign-investment laws as among his major accomplishments. Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the electricity is off most of the time — but we've given Iraq the gift of supply-side economics.

If the occupiers often seemed oblivious to reality, one reason was that many jobs at the C.P.A. went to people whose qualifications seemed to lie mainly in their personal and political connections — people like Simone Ledeen, whose father, Michael Ledeen, a prominent neoconservative, told a forum that "the level of casualties is secondary" because "we are a warlike people" and "we love war."

Still, given Mr. Bremer's economic focus, you might at least have expected his top aide for private-sector development to be an expert on privatization and liberalization in such countries as Russia or Argentina. But the job initially went to Thomas Foley, a Connecticut businessman and Republican fund-raiser with no obviously relevant expertise. In March, Michael Fleischer, a New Jersey businessman, took over. Yes, he's Ari Fleischer's brother. Mr. Fleischer told The Chicago Tribune that part of his job was educating Iraqi businessmen: "The only paradigm they know is cronyism. We are teaching them that there is an alternative system with built-in checks and built-in review."

Checks and review? Yesterday a leading British charity, Christian Aid, released a scathing report, "Fueling Suspicion," on the use of Iraqi oil revenue. It points out that the May 2003 U.N. resolution giving the C.P.A. the right to spend that revenue required the creation of an international oversight board, which would appoint an auditor to ensure that the funds were spent to benefit the Iraqi people.

Instead, the U.S. stalled, and the auditor didn't begin work until April 2004. Even then, according to an interim report, it faced "resistance from C.P.A. staff." And now, with the audit still unpublished, the C.P.A. has been dissolved.

Defenders of the administration will no doubt say that Christian Aid and other critics have no proof that the unaccounted-for billions were ill spent. But think of it this way: given the Arab world's suspicion that we came to steal Iraq's oil, the occupation authorities had every incentive to expedite an independent audit that would clear Halliburton and other U.S. corporations of charges that they were profiteering at Iraq's expense. Unless, that is, the charges are true.

Let's say the obvious. By making Iraq a playground for right-wing economic theorists, an employment agency for friends and family, and a source of lucrative contracts for corporate donors, the administration did terrorist recruiters a very big favor.

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/29/opinion/29KRUG.html)

[rimrocker]

Makes you proud...

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040628/capt.bag13506281748.iraq_saddams_flag_bag135.jpg

An Iraqi flag flies over a building now run by the new Iraqi government in Baghdad, Iraq (news - web sites) Monday, June 28, 2004. A new national flag was designed during the administration of L. Paul Bremer but was rejected by most Iraqis. The new Iraqi government has reverted to the old flag.

[mc mark]

Time to call Iraq war a failure

The New York City schools this year implemented a very controversial program to end social promotions. One of the fail-safe points comes in the third grade, when students, for some odd reason, have to prove they can read and do some math. It's a good thing for the Bush administration that Mayor Bloomberg was not doing Paul Bremer's job. If so, Iraq would have been left back.

Instead, Iraq graduated to sovereignty two days early - a ceremony accelerated not because Iraq was doing so well but because it was doing so badly. The real failure here is not Iraq's, of course, but the Bush administration's. It is the parent and it once set out certain goals for its progeny that, by any measure, Iraq has not met. Iraq is by no means secure, nor can it stand on its own. About 130,000 American troops remain there, fighting an insurgency that even the Pentagon, not known for its frankness, concedes is "much stronger" than anyone anticipated. Beyond that, no one seems to know who leads it. To quote "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," "Who are those guys?"

The ceremony in Baghdad is the appropriate time to pronounce the war in Iraq a failure, maybe even a debacle. Its only success was the removal of Saddam Hussein - an ogre, yes, but one who had been largely defanged by years of UN sanctions, arms inspections and his own stunning incompetence. No meaningful link to Al Qaeda has been established, no weapons of mass destruction have been found and no diminution of terrorism has resulted - an astounding trifecta of failure. In fact, there is more worldwide terrorism than ever before. More successes like Iraq, and Americans won't want to travel farther than Bruce Springsteen's Jersey Shore.

Yesterday's ceremony was propelled partly by the upcoming American elections. The apparent policy of the Bush administration is to keep combat deaths to a minimum - even if that means letting the bad guys go. It has enacted the doctrine first enunciated by Richard Nixon's attorney general John Mitchell, who, in paraphrase, said, "Watch what we do and not what we say." So watch when American soldiers do not clear out infestations of militia fighters, as has already been the case in Fallujah. That might be bad for Iraq but it's good for Bush in November.

We all should wish the graduate well. If Iraq implodes, then the Middle East that Bush wants to transform into an Islamic Iowa is going to go to pieces.

Already, the Kurds are making noises that sound suspiciously like a declaration of independence and no one, it seems, knows what the Iranians are up to.

A supposedly new Iraq was born this week, a graduate going off - really being kissed off - without the necessary skills. The insincerely proud parent of this miserable misfit is the Bush administration, whose incompetence has been staggering.

Monday's charade, though, is only half done. Graduate the kid, if need be, but fail the principal.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/207131p-178685c.html

[Murdock]

U.S is still overruling the Iraqi Judicial after the Transfer..

Prisoner 27075 learns limits of sovereignty
By Nicolas Pelham in Baghdad
Published: June 28 2004 19:57 | Last Updated: June 28 2004 19:57

Iyad Akmush Kanum, 23, learnt the limits of sovereignty on Monday when US prosecutors refused to uphold an Iraqi judges' order acquitting him of attempted murder of coalition troops.


US prosecutors said that he was being returned to the controversial Abu Ghraib prison because under the Geneva Conventions they were not bound by Iraqi law.

A few hundred metres from where outgoing administrator Paul Bremer formally ended the US occupation of Iraq on Monday, Mr Kanum - prisoner number 27075 - cowered handcuffed on a backroom floor in the Central Criminal Court, where Iraqis are tried for attacks against coalition forces.

"Iraqis who have been detained as a security threat can still be detained until firstly the coalition leaves or secondly they are considered to be no longer a threat," said Michael Frank, deputy special prosecutor for Multinational Force-Iraq (MNFI), who oversaw the case dressed in military fatigues.

The prosecution alleges Mr Kanum was in the car from which a gunman was firing an AK-47 rifle at Iraqi and coalition troops on the outskirts of Baghdad. Mr Kanum denies the charges, saying it was a case of mistaken identity.

The Central Criminal Court is a hybrid legal institution, created by the American-led occupation, in which US lawyers prepare cases for Iraqi prosecutors to present to Iraqi judges, who were in turn chosen by the coalition.

It tries cases based on Iraqi law and coalition decrees.

Despite the end of the US occupation on Monday, US prosecutors said the Court would continue unchanged after the handover.

<snip>

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373324911&p=1012571727088

[rimrocker]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.filler29jun29,0,3826763.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines


60% see handover as sign of failure, poll shows
But 75% in U.S. approve transfer to Iraqis anyway

Associated Press

June 29, 2004

WASHINGTON - Americans are deeply skeptical about the handover of political control to Iraqis when the country has not been stabilized, according to an opinion poll released yesterday.

By a 2-to-1 margin, Americans say the handover of political sovereignty to Iraqis now is not a sign of success but a sign of failure, because the country's stability remains in question, according to a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll. Still, three-fourths of the poll respondents approved of the U.S. handover of authority to Iraqis.

The U.S.-led coalition in Iraq transferred sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government yesterday - two days early.

In the Gallup poll, six in 10 said the handover of authority at such an unstable point is a sign of failure, while about three in 10, 32 percent, said the handover of authority on schedule is a sign of success, according to the Gallup poll taken last week.

Six in 10 said they think it is unlikely that internal security will be established in Iraq in the next five years, and 63 percent said U.S. troops will be in Iraq for another three years or more.

Americans say they prefer a shorter U.S. military presence. Seven in 10 respondents said the United States should have a significant number of troops in Iraq for two years or less.

The Gallup poll found that despite their doubts, a majority, 54 percent, say the transfer of authority could improve the situation in Iraq.

Public opinion about Iraq has been slipping in recent weeks. Last week, a majority of Americans said for the first time in a Gallup poll that the United States made a mistake in invading Iraq. And more than half said the war in Iraq has made the United States less safe from terrorism.

The Gallup poll of 1,005 adults was taken June 21-23 and has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Murdock
U.S is still overruling the Iraqi Judicial after the Transfer..

Prisoner 27075 learns limits of sovereignty
By Nicolas Pelham in Baghdad
Published: June 28 2004 19:57 | Last Updated: June 28 2004 19:57

Iyad Akmush Kanum, 23, learnt the limits of sovereignty on Monday when US prosecutors refused to uphold an Iraqi judges' order acquitting him of attempted murder of coalition troops.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373324911&p=1012571727088

Well I like the idea of Iraqi sovereignty. Too bad at this stage it's still only the idea, and not a reality that we are seeing happening, according to this.

[mc mark]

Come on FB!

We all know who still holds the cards over there.

[Zion]

In March, Michael Fleischer, a New Jersey businessman, took over. Yes, he's Ari Fleischer's brother. Mr. Fleischer told The Chicago Tribune that part of his job was educating Iraqi businessmen: "The only paradigm they know is cronyism. We are teaching them that there is an alternative system with built-in checks and built-in review."

LOL! unbelievable. Do these people really think we're all that stupid.

[basso]

john keegan has a nice article on the handover- he doesn't spare the neocons, but he has equal disdain for the COTH (coalition of the hysterical). His article brings up an interesting dilema: If the goal is worthy, the process messy, and the outcome uncertain, is a thing still worth doing? for me the answer is yes. the problems of the occupation should not mitigate against the lofty principles w/ which the war was begun, nor should they deter us from venturing into other trouble spots (Sudan, Iran, Syria) should it be necessary. hopefully though, we will have learned some things about how to manage an occupation in a non-western country.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/06/29/do2901.xml

--
The nation-building lessons Washington has to learn
By John Keegan
(Filed: 29/06/2004)

Paul Bremer, the American head of Iraq's interim administration, has made his farewell. Two days earlier than was expected, he has left the country; Iyad Allawi becomes Prime Minister and Iraq regains its sovereignty.

Up to a point. More than 100,000 foreign troops will remain on its soil to battle with the forces of disorder, and the Iraqi treasury will depend on funds voted for by the American Congress to finance the work of reconstruction following last year's war, several wars before that and decades of maladministration by Saddam Hussein.

The anti-war coalition, which now includes the whole of the media, the American Democrats and most European political parties, as well as the well-intentioned public from Anchorage to Ankara, no doubt anticipates a worsening of the situation in Iraq. The media, at any rate, will wallow in any bad news. Jon Snow, of Channel 4 News, self-appointed scourge of the Anglo-American peacemakers in Iraq, now visibly shakes with glee at every report of car bombing and assassination or, God pardon him, the death of coalition soldiers.

There will be more emotive news stories about the "disaster" of war. The limelight is a solvent of decent reticence. But, however many witnesses to disaster Jon Snow succeeds in finding, witnesses willing to denounce their government and armed forces, he cannot alter the record. The war was conceived and conducted in the honest belief that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. It was legally justified by United Nations Security Council Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. It was, moreover, as a military operation, astonishingly successful, probably the most successful war ever fought between a democracy and a dictatorship.

Had the defeat of Saddam's armed forces resulted in a general Iraqi acceptance of the outcome, no doubt the anti-war coalition would have spluttered out, to be remembered only as a footnote to events, a parallel in miniature of CND's collapse at the fall of communism. What has sustained the anti-war coalition, and allowed it to become influentially dominant, is the rise of resistance within Iraq to the Anglo-American presence. The war itself cost the lives of less than 100 US servicemen, but in the aftermath 600 have been killed, either in ambushes and car bombings or in gunfights with insurgents in the "Sunni Triangle".

One does not have to belong to the anti-war coalition to believe that something has gone wrong or to believe that what has gone wrong could have been avoided. Whether the current Washington regime was capable of avoiding the trouble is a more complex issue. President George W Bush brought with him into power an entourage of highly opinionated advisers, who were rapidly appointed to influential positions. They have become known as "neo-conservatives", since many were people formerly on the Left who subsequently moved Right.

A more accurate way of describing them would be as "post-Marxists", in that, like many 20th-century intellectuals, their thinking was formed in reaction to the Soviet system, whether originally for or against. In the world in which they matured, it was impossible not to perceive politics as the supreme and dominant human activity. Their perception had distorting after-effects.

The new conservatives who had rejected Left-wing solutions to the world's problems were nevertheless left with the conviction that any solution would be political. Confronted by the residue of tyranny, as in post-Soviet Eastern Europe, they expected democracy to take its place. Inside any people's democracy, they might have said, there is a real democracy struggling to get out. In the case of eastern Europe, they were genuinely right. Fifty years' experience of Marxist orthodoxy had conditioned every intelligent East European to yearn for democracy and to embrace it warmly wherever it showed itself.

The neo-conservatives' mistake was to suppose that, wherever tyranny ruled, democracy was its natural alternative. So, when planning for the government of post-war Iraq, the lead agency, the Pentagon, dominated by neo-conservatives, jumps to the conclusion that, as soon as Saddam's tyranny was destroyed, Iraqi democrats would emerge to assume governmental responsibility from the liberating coalition and a pro-Western regime would evolve seamlessly from the flawed past.

To think in such a way was to reveal a dangerously post-Marxist cast of mind. Marxists can think only in political terms. They accept, even if they despise, liberal and conservative opposition. What they cannot accept is that their opponents may be motivated by beliefs which are not political in any way at all. That explains their hatred of religion.

It is religion, of course, which the American neo-conservatives have come up against in post-Saddam Iraq. Not only religion; the survivors of the Ba'ath Party, a strictly secular organisation, are also deeply involved in the opposition to the American presence. Religion is, however, the real opposition force. The question is whether the grip it has established in the past year can be loosened.

Whatever the purity of their political motives, the American occupiers should not have dissolved the Iraqi army or police or civil administration, whatever the number of Ba'ath Party members they contain. Iyad Allawi has now to rebuild Iraq's military and civilian services from exactly the same group of individuals who the neo-conservatives rejected at the outset. Let us hope that the neo-conservatives and their Democrat equivalents have learnt a lesson, since it is unlikely that this is the last time the United States will have to undertake an exercise in nation-building. Next time Washington should take as its target the preservation of as much as possible. Looking back, better a Ba'athist Iraq than an Islamic one. Let us hope that it is not too late.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by basso
. hopefully though, we will have learned some things about how to manage an occupation in a non-western country.



Hopefully we would have learned that after Afghanistan!

[mc mark]

They have become known as "neo-conservatives", since many were people formerly on the Left who subsequently moved Right.

Wha???

[basso]

Originally posted by mc mark
Wha???

yes, it's true. the other day i caught my daughter playing with my old copy of mao's little red book...