Iraq council: U.S. occupation to end by June

So, we had to have a vote on the "war" before the 2002 elections and now we'll get out of the "war" before the 2004 elections. The dates of this catastrophe tell all.

 

It will be interesting to see what we do if things are still a mess over there in June.

 

That's a pretty important situation. We need to get on Operation Kill Saddam pretty quickly if we're really going to pull out in June. If he's still out there when we pull out it could be a disaster.

 

The talk I've heard is we'd stay with a military presence as long as we were welcome, which may not be very long if they have democratic elections, but they could see the light, who knows.

 

I don't care about the timing or political benefit -- the sooner we get out of there, the better.

Yes, it sucks Bush will get the political benefit of leaving a crappy situation he created. But far too many Americans have died already.

 

GV I know! It does suck.


more info

----------
America's Gamble: A Quick Exit Plan for Iraq
By DAVID E. SANGER


ASHINGTON, Nov. 15 — The announcement of a firm date to create an interim Iraqi government and end the formal American occupation — though not the American military presence — promises the Iraqis the sovereignty they have clamored for, and offers President Bush the political symbol he needed: the beginnings of an exit strategy that he can explain to American voters.

But the price of a speedy transfer of power, Mr. Bush's own top aides worry, may be a rapid loss of control — control over the drafting of a constitution, and over the effort to make democracy flower in a land where it had never been cultivated. Now that Mr. Bush himself has redefined America's mission in Iraq — from disarming Saddam Hussein to creating "a free and democratic society" that will be a model for the rest of the Middle East — any plan that grants Iraq its sovereignty before it adopts full-fledged democracy risks derailing that grander mission.

"It's a gamble, a huge gamble," one of the most senior architects of Mr. Bush's campaign to oust Saddam Hussein conceded this week, after two days of meetings with L. Paul Bremer III, the head of the American-led occupation authority. "But it's easy to overestimate the degree of control we have over events now," the official said, "and to underestimate how much we will retain."

If the plan succeeds, Mr. Bush could declare an end the formal American occupation of Iraq by early summer, just as the presidential campaign heads into its final and decisive stretch.

But American officials expect that tens of thousands of allied troops will remain at the new government's "invitation," and nobody can predict whether they will still face a violent and deadly insurgency, possibly targeting Iraqi security forces as well. That would make it harder for Mr. Bush to describe the transfer of power to a new government, and the drawing down of American troops, as an unqualified success.


Aside from its continuing military presence — the United States will continue to flex its financial muscle as it doles out $20 billion in rebuilding aid and oversees billions more in private investments in the country.

But the combination of an intensifying insurgency and rapidly eroding Iraqi support for the American occupation left President Bush few options but to loosen his grip over the nation that he had conquered and is now trying to rebuild.

So in the past week, an administration that is loath to admit any doubts about the wisdom of its judgments basically rewrote its strategy.

Administration officials have dismissed critics who suggest that the process might be driven by Mr. Bush's electoral needs, taking pains to portray the new approach as Iraqi-born, initiated by Iraqi leaders out of what Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, called a "clamor" for a faster turnover of power.

Yet until sometime in the past few weeks, Mr. Bremer argued internally that the Iraqis were not ready to assume full authority, and that turning it over before the basic outlines of Iraqi democracy were established would invite chaos, or worse.

During his abruptly scheduled meetings at the White House on Tuesday and Wednesday, Mr. Bremer delivered the news that the fractious Iraqi Governing Council was approaching rebellion over the plan to draft a constitution first and to transfer power only after national elections. It was an approach that was straightforward, logical, deeply rooted in the history of the occupations of Japan and Germany, and untenable on the streets of Baghdad.

"The initial idea was essentially a softer version of the MacArthur approach," one senior official said, referring to how Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who led the seven-year occupation of Japan, drafted the defeated nation's constitution with a pliant, American-installed government.

Mr. Bush's original plan was slightly less imperial than MacArthur's approach, calling for the Iraqis themselves to write the constitution. But all the hard questions — whether Iraq will be a secular state or an Islamic one, and how to protect the rights of minorities like the Kurds — would have been vetted closely by the Americans.

The new strategy creates a government before the constitution.
It turns power over to Iraqi leaders before there are national elections, and perhaps before it is clear that an interim government formed from town meetings or provincial elections has established legitimacy.

The country would be operating under a basic legal framework — one expected to set out principles of human rights and equality for all religious sects — that would have to suffice until a constitution is written. A senior administration official said Saturday afternoon that so far, members of the Governing Council seemed attuned to "values that we hold in common and are very comfortable with." Yet, the rights of minority groups would not yet be constitutionally established. The question of federalism — the degree to which Baghdad's dictates would apply in the provinces of a stitched-together nation — would be unsettled. The relationship between Islamic law and national law would still be undefined.

Mr. Bush's aides insist that even after sovereignty passes to the provisional government, American influence will be strong. The United States military will have the heavy firepower. The $20 billion for reconstruction that Congress has approved will still be under American control, its flow directed to influencing events according to Washington's wishes. The administration will emphasize that American investors will demand independent courts, a secular government and political stability before risking billions reconstructing the Iraqi economy.

"We'll have more levers than you think, and maybe more than the Iraqis think," one senior White House official said this week.

But if there are lessons in the occupation so far, they boil down to this: It takes less planning to topple a dictator than to build a democracy. The invasion of Iraq was largely in the command of the invaders. The building of a democratic government, by definition, is in the hands of the new electorate and subject to the disruptions of the Baathists and foreign groups whose campaign of terror has seemed to gain strength each month.

Mr. Bush has insisted that it is "inconceivable" that American forces will leave until a stable democracy is established. The question, which no one in the White House will yet answer, is how he will know when that moment has come.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/16/international/middleeast/16ASSE.html

It’s going to be another Afghanistan

 

Allow me to preface this by saying i remain convinced Bush is a terrible leader who has done immeasurable damage to this country, the world, and the concept of freedom.


That said, re: leaving Iraq, it does seem that he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Now that may be just...after all, it's pretty clear to me that he lied and manipulated this country into invading another country, used selective intel, and ignored contrary data, and went in on flimsy assumptions of US superiority being able to overcome all obstacles.

And I think that most anti-war folks arw with me in agreeing that, if he is not held accountable for this, it bodes incredibly badly for what future Presiden't's will feel they can get away with, and what the wolrd will feel about our sense of accountability.

BUT...either he should leave or he shouldn't. I, myself, feel that we have a debt of having created this God-awful mess, in which case we owe it to whatever party is in charge to do what they ask of us to help clean it up, but that Step One should be that we relinquish control, be it to the UN, or the Iraqis themselves, and completely remain hands off in terms of telling them what kind of government they want, who can run for office, etc. It is our mess, but it's not our country. So if that is what Bush is planning, while it's important that he remain accountable, it's also important that we don't continue to work out our political agendas in other people's countries. Even if he's doing it for political gain, what we should do is make sure, as a country, that he doesn't get it, and is held responsible. What we shouldn't do is prevent him from doing the right thing, IF that's what he's going to do, simply because it's for the wrong reasons. That's something we can do at home; in other people's countries, it's not our right.

 

Fair is foul, and foul is fair.

 

I'd like to believe this wonderful news. But I get the feeling that this is the proverbial carrot dangled in front of us. Don't be surprised if some "unforeseen" event keeps us there way beyond June. I hate being so cynical, but this administration has sucked almost all optimism from me.

 

I don't mind getting out of Iraq, but not unless there are international peace keepers their in our place. Or unless we are leaving a stable Iraq behind.

The problem, of course, with this is that Bush is unable or unwilling to work with the international community to get them on board with the program. I know he's eager to speed things up and get out of there. Regardless of the reason, his own attitude towards the international community is now biting him on the ass.

 

It's hard to have a world view when you've never been there.

But, damit, you're are right FranchiseBlade, we've made this mess, and if Bush is true to his word, suddder.., we'll make sure we don't leave the place in anarchy.

 

that's shudder, damnit!

 

Why Chickenhawks Matter
[from the December 1, 2003 issue of Nation]
Eric Alterman

During the run-up to the Iraq war, it was impossible not to notice that those most gung-ho for the adventure were, by and large, virgins when it came to the actual battlefield. George W. ("I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes") Bush; Dick ("I had other priorities") Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Tom DeLay, Elliott Abrams--to a man, all found better things to do than join the armed forces during Vietnam, a war most of them supported.

During the war debate, this issue was confused by the casual tossing of the epithet "chickenhawk." This discussion was actually promoted by the war party itself--together with its punditocracy cheerleaders--as it allowed its members to wrap themselves in the flag of free speech. It also appealed to the media, few of whose denizens had seen the inside of a military uniform either. But the point was not--or should not have been--to question the right of those who never served in the military to make military policy, which, after all, is intelligently enshrined in the Constitution. Rather it was a matter of judgment: Knowing nothing of war from firsthand experience, these men (and women) were more likely to have a romantic view of what war could accomplish.

The results of this foolish faith are all around us. While Bush prefers to avoid the many unpleasant aspects of the war--allowing no photographing of returning coffins and attending no funerals of fallen soldiers--he waxes rhapsodic about the alleged democratic benefits the Arab world will one day reap from this botched operation. Meanwhile, as Don Van Natta Jr. and Desmond Butler reported in the New York Times, "Across Europe and the Middle East, young militant Muslim men are answering a call issued by Osama bin Laden and other extremists, and leaving home to join the fight against the American-led occupation in Iraq." The net result, according to Uri Dromi, director of International Outreach at the Israel Democracy Institute in Jerusalem, is that Iraq appears to be turning into America's "Lebanon." In that conflict, in which Israel attempted to address a political problem with blunt force, it succeeded only in bleeding itself dry, creating more hatred and hence more terrorism, and ultimately decreasing the security of its citizens before leaving in ignominy and humiliation.

What makes this catastrophe all the more infuriating is how predictable it was--except, of course, by those blinded by ideology and unwilling to listen to more experienced voices. If only the Administration had not turned a deaf ear when those former military men not under "color" contract to the networks spoke candidly about the proposed war. None did so with greater force or credibility than Maj. Gen. Anthony Zinni, who headed the US Central Command from 1997 to 2000 and was later George W. Bush's special envoy to the Israeli/Palestinian negotiations.

Just over a year ago, Zinni gave talks, one to the Middle East Institute in Washington, in which he predicted many problems now facing US occupation authorities. Among Zinni's warnings:

The war party itself: "It's pretty interesting that all the generals see it the same way, and all the others, who have never fired a shot and are hot to go to war, see it another.... We are about to...ignite a fuse in this region...we will rue the day we ever started."

Is this a liberation? What comes next? "If it's short with minimal destruction, there will be the initial euphoria of change. It's always what comes next that is tough. I went in with the first troops that went into Somalia. We were greeted as heroes on the street.... [After] about a month...a group of prominent Somalis...wanted to talk to me. I met with them. The first question out of their mouths was that we'd been there a month, hadn't started a jobs program, and when were we going to fix the economy? Well, I didn't know it was my Marine unit's responsibility to do that. Expectations grow rapidly.... It's not whether you're greeted in the streets as a hero; it's whether you're still greeted as a hero when you come back a year from now."

Is Iraq likely to become a democracy? "If we think there is a fast solution to changing the governance of Iraq, then we don't understand history, the nature of the country, the divisions, or the underneath suppressed passions that could rise up.... If you think it's going to be easy to impose a government or install one from the outside, I think that you're further sadly mistaken."

What are (were) the alternatives? "If I were to give you my priority of things that can change for the better in this region, it is first and foremost the Middle East peace process and getting it back on track. Second, it is insuring that Iran's reformation or moderation continues on track and trying to help and support the people who are trying to make that change in the best way we can.... The third is to make sure those countries to which we have now committed ourselves to change, like Afghanistan and those in Central Asia, we invest what we need to in the way of resources there to make that change happen. Fourth is to patch up these relationships that have become strained, and fifth is to reconnect to the people. We are talking past each other.... We have based this in things that are tough to compromise on, like religion and politics, and we need to reconnect in a different way.

"I would take those priorities before this one [deposing Saddam]. My personal view, and this is just personal, is that I think this isn't number one. It's maybe six or seven, and the affordability line may be drawn around five."

General Zinni is a brave and patriotic soldier. After he made those remarks, he was informed by Bush Administration officials that he "will never be used by the White House again." Compare that with the kid-glove treatment given General ("My God is bigger than your God") Boykin. Like his fellow former soldier, John McCain, Zinni hears echoes in the rhetoric of the Bush team that must give him nightmares. "It reminds me of Vietnam. Here we have some strategic thinkers who have long wanted to invade Iraq. They saw an opportunity, and they used the imminence of the threat and the association with terrorism and the 9/11 emotions as a catalyst and justification. It's another Gulf of Tonkin."

 

Deal on Formation of Iraq's New Gov't
By The Associated Press

The agreement between the U.S.-led coalition and the Iraqi Governing Council on the formation of Iraq's new government.

1. The "Fundamental Law." To be drafted by the Governing Council in close consultation with the Coalition Provisional Authority. Will be approved by both the GC and CPA, and will formally set forth the scope and structure of the sovereign Iraqi transitional administration.

Elements of the "Fundamental Law":

_ Bill of rights, to include freedom of speech, legislature, religion; statement of equal rights of all Iraqis, regardless of gender, sect, and ethnicity; and guarantees of due process.

_ Federal arrangement for Iraq, to include governorates and the separation and specification of powers to be exercised by central and local entities.

_ Statement of the independence of the judiciary, and a mechanism for judicial review.

_ Statement of civilian political control over Iraqi armed and security forces.

_ Statement that Fundamental Law cannot be amended.

_ An expiration date for Fundamental Law.

_ Timetable for drafting of Iraq's permanent constitution by a body directly elected by the Iraqi people; for ratifying the permanent constitution; and for holding elections under the new constitution.

Drafting and approval of "Fundamental Law" to be complete by Feb. 28, 2004.

2. Agreements with Coalition on Security. To be agreed between the CPA and the GC. Security agreements to cover status of Coalition forces in Iraq, giving wide latitude to provide for the safety and security of the Iraqi people.

Approval of bilateral agreements complete by the end of March 2004.

3. Selection of Transitional National Assembly. Fundamental Law will specify the bodies of the national structure, and will ultimately spell out the process by which individuals will be selected for these bodies. However, certain guidelines must be agreed in advance.

_ The transitional assembly will not be an expansion of the GC. The GC will have no formal role in selecting members of the assembly, and will dissolve upon the establishment and recognition of the transitional administration. Individual members of the GC will, however, be eligible to serve in the transitional assembly, if elected according to the process below.

_ Election of members of the Transitional National Assembly will be conducted through a transparent, participatory, democratic process of caucuses in each of Iraq's 18 governorates.

_ In each governorate, the CPA will supervise a process by which an "Organizing Committee" of Iraqis will be formed. This Organizing Committee will include five individuals appointed by the Governing Council, five appointed by the Provincial Council, and one appointed by the local council of the five largest cities within the governorate.

_ The purpose of the Organizing Committee will be to convene a "Governorate Selection Caucus" of notables from around the governorate. To do so, it will solicit nominations from political parties, provincial-local councils, professional and civic associations, university faculties, tribal and religious groups. Nominees must meet the criteria set out for candidates in the Fundamental Law. To be selected as a member of the Governorate Selection Caucus, any nominee will need to be approved by an 11/15 majority of the Organizing Committee.

_ Each Governorate Selection Caucus will elect representatives to represent the governorate in the new transitional assembly based on the governorates percentage of Iraq's population.

The Transitional National Assembly will be elected no later than May 31, 2004.

4. Restoration of Iraq's Sovereignty. Following the selection of members of the transitional assembly, it will meet to elect an executive branch, and to appoint ministers.

By June 30, 2004 the new transitional administration will be recognized by the Coalition, and will assume full sovereign powers for governing Iraq. The CPA will dissolve.

5. Process for Adoption of Permanent Constitution. The constitutional process and timeline will ultimately be included in the Fundamental Law, but need to be agreed in advance, as detailed below.

_ A permanent constitution for Iraq will be prepared by a constitutional convention directly elected by the Iraqi people.

_ Elections for the convention will be held no later than March 15, 2005.

_ A draft of the constitution will be circulated for public comment and debate.

_ A final draft of the constitution will be presented to the public, and a popular referendum will be held to ratify the constitution.

_ Elections for a new Iraqi government will be held by Dec. 31, 2005, at which point the Fundamental Law will expire and a new government will take power.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...1&u=/ap/20031115/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_glance_1

 

Does anyone think that Bush will pull the troops out in June if Saddam has not been found by then?

Methinks not.

Ending the occupation by June is a pipe dream...unless they catch or kill Saddam by then.

The Bush Administration is dancing as fast as it can to try to cover up the fact that they had absolutely no plan for a post-war, post-Saddam Iraq.

 

Thanks for the info on the fundamental law, MC Mark. There is one clause in there about the law not being able to be amended that scares me. I think our constitutioin and our nation has survived because we can amend it.

 

FranchiseBlade from what I understand from the article, the "fundamental Law" will expire when a constitution is written.

But...
-------------

Iraq's temporary constitution to resemble America's
By Barbara Slavin and Steven Komarow, USA TODAY

The Bush administration vowed Sunday to put in place a temporary Iraqi constitution that embodies American values.


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=676&u=/usatoday/20031117/ts_usatoday/11955039&printer=1

Nice to see we're letting Iraq write their own constitution.