http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3233601.stm
The chief US administrator in Iraq has said he wants to accelerate the handover of authority to Iraqis.

Paul Bremer told a news conference in Baghdad his aim was to give Iraqis a "path and a timeline" for the transfer of power from the US-led coalition.

He also promised to speed up the training of Iraqi soldiers and police to respond to ongoing attacks.
Iraq will be handed over to Iraqi's soon. Wow thats great news.
Unfortunately, I have the feeling that what he means is that things aren't going well so they're going to throw up a quick puppet government and let Iraqi troops rather than American troops be the target of attacks, in order to keep the public back home from realizing somethings wrong. Kinda like Afghanistan.
It may be just my imagination but I haven't heard anyone mention anything about holding elections over there for a while now.

"Premature Iraqification", by Reuel Marc Gerecht.
- http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/103webeo.asp

It's just this article, you know? In moving hastily, the administration could be tempted to draw significantly from the former Sunni Arab military officer corps, the Sunni Arab rank and file, and the few Shiite Arab officers who had risen to senior positions in Saddam Hussein's completely politicized army. Unintentionally, the administration could transgress a red line with Iraq's Shiite clergy, who are closely watching how America handles the reconstitution of Iraq's security forces. It was the army, in Sunni Arab hands, and the British that denied the Shiites their rightful predominance in the country's first parliament after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Without the army, Iraq's succession of dictators could never have destroyed its once vibrant culture.

It bears repeating: Any action by the Coalition Provisional Authority that fundamentally compromises its relationship with the Shiite clergy is unwise. Whatever trouble the Bush administration thinks it is currently having in Iraq, it will look back wistfully to this time if the Shiites go into opposition. The bombings in Najaf have already partially reactivated the Badr Brigade, the Iranian-created paramilitary force behind the slain Shiite leader, Muhammad Baqr al-Hakim. If there are any more major bombings in the Shiite south, especially in the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala, the Badr Brigade will unquestionably become a permanent, active component of the Shiite landscape. So far, the Badr, along with the rest of the Shiite community, have reacted to al-Hakim's death and the attempted assassination of his nephew, Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Said al-Hakim, with equanimity. However, if the Coalition Provisional Authority missteps in the eyes of the Shiites in its rebuilding of Iraq's internal security forces, a collision with the Badr corps is by no means unthinkable. Indeed, the Authority should be prepared to preempt such possible hostility by trying to incorporate units of the Badr into any new Iraqi army.

Obviously, enormous care must be taken in building Iraq's future armed forces: This is easily the most critical task confronting the Bush administration. The finest decision of Ambassador Bremer in Iraq was to retire the remnants of the old, Sunni-dominated military. The retention of that force could have put us hopelessly at odds with the Shiites and Kurds, who are at least 80 percent of Iraq's population. However badly the U.S. military wants to share the burden in Iraq, it would be an egregious mistake to have a functioning Iraqi army before the Iraqi people have a constitution, to which Iraqi soldiers must swear their allegiance. Indeed, this is the yardstick by which we can best gauge whether Defense, panicked by the bombs of August, has become its own worst enemy. And it's even old insofar as much has happened since its September 22, 2003 publication date. But an interesting article nonetheless.

But one thing I'm having trouble discerning is in what context do we read the word "premature"? Certes, Iraq for Iraqis and forward from there as soon as possible, but is premature in this sense to be taken as premature insofar as Iraq has not the infrastructure to be Iraq for Iraqis without the American overlord, or premature insofar as the Bush administration cannot be guaranteed that the new Iraq will accommodate the New American Century's vision for its petroleum?

Originally posted by tiassa
"Premature Iraqification", by Reuel Marc Gerecht.
- http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/103webeo.asp

It's just this article, you know? And it's even old insofar as much has happened since its September 22, 2003 publication date. But an interesting article nonetheless.

But one thing I'm having trouble discerning is in what context do we read the word "premature"? Certes, Iraq for Iraqis and forward from there as soon as possible, but is premature in this sense to be taken as premature insofar as Iraq has not the infrastructure to be Iraq for Iraqis without the American overlord, or premature insofar as the Bush administration cannot be guaranteed that the new Iraq will accommodate the New American Century's vision for its petroleum?
That's an interesting article. It would seem that although not what was intended, the second meaning is the one I come away with for "premature"
Creating an Iraqi army prior to a constitution so they can die in place of Americans certianly does have the danger of creating a military power structure that will not be willingly subservient to whatever government they come up with later. Its pretty clear however that whatever government they do come up with, the US is going to be taking the oil, and having its corporations get all the contracts, which probably is not what the majority of Iraqi's would want their government to do. Of course a takeover by a prematurely created Iraqi military, wouldn't be likely to work in the people's best interests either.

Handover to who ?

...Ironnically maybe the best person to handover this mess would be no less than.... ...Saddam Hussein! He could bring some sort of stabillity.

Originally posted by Vortexx
Handover to who ?

...Ironnically maybe the best person to handover this mess would be no less than.... ...Saddam Hussein! He could bring some sort of stabillity.
I was actually thinking that the easiest way out would be to turn it over to Iran.

Well seriously now the Americans are NEVER going to allow Iraq to be handed over to Iran, not even Southern Iraq (which I assume you believe Iran would receive). What Iraq needs is separation, that is the only hope Iraq has of actually getting into some form of peaceful co-existence. Otherwise are we going to have a pseudo-election like 2000 or what in Iraq? Surely the US will not accept a theocracy on S.A borders. This is no matter how you slice it going to end up a disaster.

Ironnically maybe the best person to handover this mess would be no less than.... ...Saddam Hussein! He could bring some sort of stabillity.


i agree with you !!!
at least he had the country under control ( uhmmm ... yes , he wasn´t a funny guy ... but what is funny in this world today )
i saw iraqis on tv some time ago - " with saddam , we had at least food , water and a home "
of course , this was just a single opinion .... but i saw more of them !

Iran is a much better option, although at this point it wouldn't surprise me if one way or another, someone much like Saddam ends up in control(Saddam himself of course, will under no circumstances be allowed to resurface)

Well the Bath'ists or the communists are the only overarching force in Iraq today that are of any significance at all. But to have the bath-ists in power again would be quite a story. I think the best that the US can actually hope for is a united communist front, the Kurds are thoroughly socialistic, and the Sunni's wouldn't object to the secular nature of the communists. But the Shi'a still will present the problem. Also I see very much a Yugoslavia coming up.

Nico,
The best the US can hope for is to get someone like Saddam who's a little less crazy and less likely to go rogue on us, who is willing to let us plunder the country, and then convince the world that he was democratically elected.
The best thing for the Iraqi's would likely be as you describe it.

Turning things over to the Iranians would be an easy way out, as they would likely be more readily accepted than any other foreign country.

I don't think that the US can afford that to happen; it would such a overt lie! I mean there is only one logical end of this "election" a theocracy; I would imagine very much aligned with the Iranians. Now do I think real democracy will happen? Nope. So it's natural eventuality war, and separation. No matter how you slice it, the Iraqi people have tasted political freedom and they ain't going to let go.

Originally posted by jps
Unfortunately, I have the feeling that what he means is that things aren't going well so they're going to throw up a quick puppet government and let Iraqi troops rather than American troops be the target of attacks, in order to keep the public back home from realizing somethings wrong.

I agree that’s what he means. If it is possible to land on the Moon, it is also possible to establish bona fide democracy in Iraq. It should take less time than the Moon landing. But real democracy means less oil profits for US & British oil companies. So Iraq will be a puppet.

Originally posted by nico
I don't think that the US can afford that to happen; it would such a overt lie!
Hey, it worked in Afghanistan(not that we installed someone like Saddam, but we left them no better off then they were when we came, and failed to deliver on any of the promised freedoms)

Originally posted by nico
..I mean there is only one logical end of this "election" a theocracy; I would imagine very much aligned with the Iranians.
Exactly why it would be more efficient to just turn things over to them now.

Originally posted by nico
Now do I think real democracy will happen? Nope. So it's natural eventuality war, and separation. No matter how you slice it, the Iraqi people have tasted political freedom and they ain't going to let go.
I don't see how they've really tasted political freedom under US rule.
Bremer's certainly no Saddam, but his rule hardly constitutes Iraqi political freedom.

I don't see how they've really tasted political freedom under US rule.


Well what I meant was they could protest, and the parties are growing in strength. They have no power granted, but surely more then under a Mr.Saddam H.

Hey, it worked in Afghanistan(not that we installed someone like Saddam, but we left them no better off then they were when we came, and failed to deliver on any of the promised freedoms)


Afghanistan is going to be the hot spot in I think June, the Afghani national elections are going to be held. (the result... rigged) But never the less the first test of imposed American "democracy" will have it's first run soon.


Exactly why it would be more efficient to just turn things over to them now.


Welcome to REAL POLITIK.
;)