Chalabi and the other exiles are the legitimate govt of Iraq

[GePap]

Has everyone already forgotten what general what's his name (Bremer's predecessor) said about the timetable? He was talking months, and that was back in April.... though perhaps that is why he got canned so quickly.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


did I endorse the plan anywhere? The point is that Kosovo (which is still recognized as part of Serbia), Bosnia (which came into being and recognized only a few years before intervention) and East timor (which was not recognized as a state until after the whole process was over) are not usefull annalogies to Iraq, due to hisotrical and proportional differences, and the method by which intervention was achieved.


As for the plans: I do think the French plan is rushed, the thing is I don;t see why a political ahndover means no reconstruction aid, or Americna troops for Security. The uS gave billions to fully independent states in Europe, not to states under US control coming up with a constitution, so while I think passing political control to a council that is NOt ready is hasty, I also do not see why a hyandover means the end of US forces or money as well.

The differences in scale and history would seem to indicate that Iraq needs MORE time to develop a constitution than Bosnia, Timor, or Cambodia did - not less. As for the method of intervention, I dont see how that matters. Its up to the UNSC now to make decisions.


As for US troops and aid - who said that US troops and aid would stop with a handover - I didnt - the reason its hasty is because Iraq hasnt yet written a constitution - and nobody there wants to restore the 1990 constitution. And they are still in very early stages of developing political parties (other than the ones organized by exiles) establishing a free press, etc. Rushing to elections without establishing free institutions would seem to be a formula for a new tyranny.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Wasn't it only a couple months before the US helped set up a government (however farcical) in Afganistan?

The US didnt occupy Afganistan. Kabul, you will recall, was occupied by Northern Alliance troops. The only alternative to rushing a Karzai govt would have been to allow the Northern Alliance to set themselves up as the government. Or for the Coalition to go to war with the Northern Alliance.

The Karzai govt was rushed, but there wasnt any choice. Oh, and it want just the US - the UN and Germany took lead roles as well.

[chequita guevara]

I don't think the French and German demand is a real one, but a point to be negotiated away at the table. If they started at a real solution while negotiating from Bush's neo-con game fanatasyland, they's still end up someplace bad.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Has everyone already forgotten what general what's his name (Bremer's predecessor) said about the timetable? He was talking months, and that was back in April.... though perhaps that is why he got canned so quickly.

Yup - Gardner wanted to turn the govt over to the exiles - evidently Bremer doesnt thing thats such a hot idea. Whats got me confused is not the changes in US policy - its the unexplained change in French policy.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I don't think the French and German demand is a real one, but a point to be negotiated away at the table. If they started at a real solution while negotiating from Bush's neo-con game fanatasyland, they's still end up someplace bad.

Yeah, but even in a first negotiating position youve got to make some sense, and be consistent. If youve said the US is rushing to give power to its favored, handpicked exiles, then you start by trying to exclude all the exiles, and then compromise by allowing some of them. You dont start by saying lets hand over power to the exiles tomorrow. Thats just plain nuts. Its like the Dems asking for minium wage of $8, and the GOP responding by asking for a minimum wage of $100. Youve got to ask, are they just trying to set us up to fail?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The differences in scale and history would seem to indicate that Iraq needs MORE time to develop a constitution than Bosnia, Timor, or Cambodia did - not less. As for the method of intervention, I dont see how that matters. Its up to the UNSC now to make decisions.

The issue of national sovereignty is central to the UN and its charter: if you can claim you acted to help people who's national rights were being violated by another party, fine. If you go in an overthrwo what is recognized as the legitimate government of the nation (yes, even a brutal dictatorship) then it does affect what the UN should do, no? And I would really question putting cambodia in: whatever Saddam did it still pales to what the Khmer rouge did in just 4 years..heck, ambodia still doesn;t have enough lawyers 30 years later. While I am unlcera about how long anoi took to hand over political power to Cambodians it was probably in a few months if not less.

As for US troops and aid - who said that US troops and aid would stop with a handover - I didnt -

The WaPo article you linked to did.

[lord of the mark]

"Iraq may not be a failed state, but it is a highly dysfunctional one. It has been through three decades of totalitarian rule, three wars, 13 years of economic sanctions and massive internal repression. Its ministries are organized along Stalinist lines. Its people have been cowed into submission for decades. It will take some time to reform the Iraqi state and heal Iraq's political culture. An immediate transfer of power would ****** and perhaps even reverse this process of reform. New political leaders would seek to use the Iraqi state to consolidate their power, not limit its reach. That is what happened in Bosnia. Once elected, ethnic thugs didn't want to build the rule of law; they wanted to use the law to stay in office.

A quick transfer to locals would also mean the end of American aid. The United States is planning to put at least $20 billion into Iraq this year -- half the GDP of the country. Iraq has not had a published budget since 1979. Its ministries cannot spend $20 billion, let alone spend it well. There is no chance that the United States would keep the aid flowing if it went directly into such a system"


INTO SUCH A SYSTEM - IE if Iraq did not have a genuine organized government.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


The issue of national sovereignty is central to the UN and its charter: if you can claim you acted to help people who's national rights were being violated by another party, fine. If you go in an overthrwo what is recognized as the legitimate government of the nation (yes, even a brutal dictatorship) then it does affect what the UN should do, no?

It means that its imperative that you restore Iraqi sovereignty - in the way thats best for the future of the Iraqi people - but then that would be the case anyway - are you suggesting that getting the US out is worth placing power in the hand of whoevers available, without a constitution written, without a real chance for free elections, with the likelihood of new despotism and even civil war?

That may very well be France's intention, but I'd like to see it clarified. I doubt very much that the rest of Council agrees.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


While I am unlcera about how long anoi took to hand over political power to Cambodians it was probably in a few months if not less.

and they handed power to their handpicked puppets, resulting in renewed, prolonged civil war, and ultimately UN intervention.

We're trying to do it differently.

[GePap]

The rest of the council though going in was a bad idea. One of the sad realities of the modern international system is that civl wars and any dictatorship not actively engaging in genocide is the probem of the locals alone, not the International community. Only slowly is that changin; which would generally mean that restoring soverignty to Iarqis would come ahead of whether the iraqis would self-implode (you know, the personal responsibility model which conservatives always tout about). The tning is, the international reprecussins of an Iraqi implosiuon are high enough to make it worth international stewardship.I do agree with the French than in areas where the Iraqis can take overm they should. For example, i am sure the Iraqis can take over the oil ministry and oil contracts with no problem, and thus the US should give that up

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
(you know, the personal responsibility model which conservatives always tout about).

I guess thats why im not a conservative. And Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak would say that Wolfie isnt one either.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
The tning is, the international reprecussins of an Iraqi implosiuon are high enough to make it worth international stewardship.

Yup - thats what is likely to happen - with Paul Bremer (not Jerry, pardon) as the UN representative, and with Sanchez as the UN commander.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Yeah, but even in a first negotiating position youve got to make some sense, and be consistent. If youve said the US is rushing to give power to its favored, handpicked exiles,

Well, two things. The exiles have a rather limited role in the Council. Two, I don't think that France is trying to keep the exiles from power, but is trynig to get the US to turn the reigns over to the UN.

[realpolitic]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Wasn't it only a couple months before the US helped set up a government (however farcical) in Afganistan?

Every situation is different. You can't expect Iraq to be Afganistan, it will take longer to prepare them for Democracy. To make sure that the Iraqis act responcibly, we must suck all their oil out.