Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

oops, please deleted meant to post in Editorials and Other Articles

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-04 08:19 AM
Original message
oops, please deleted meant to post in Editorials and Other Articles
Edited on Mon May-31-04 08:54 AM by maddezmom
Who Will Call the Shots in Iraq?
The prospects for Bush's plan may depend on how much control an Iraqi government has over U.S. troops there
By TONY KARON
Tuesday, May. 25, 2004

The Bush administration's battle to win international backing for its Iraq plan will hinge on how it resolves the tension between Iraqi sovereignty and U.S. security control. In his speech Monday aimed at reassuring a domestic audience increasingly skeptical over his handling of Iraq, President Bush vowed both to transfer "full sovereignty" to an Iraqi provisional government on June 30, and to maintain 138,000 U.S. troops (or, possibly, more) in Iraq "under American command." U.S. officials have also insisted, up to now, that American officers will have command responsibility for the Iraqi security forces. But sovereignty is like pregnancy — you either are or you aren't, because sovereignty means nothing less than final decision-making authority over all matters of state and the maintenance of security within the borders of a given nation state. If sovereignty is indeed to be transferred on June 30, then any U.S. or other foreign military formations in the country will have to submit to the political will of the sovereign Iraqi government.

The major question being asked by both Iraqis and much of the international community now is whether the provisional government that takes over on June 30 will have veto power over U.S. military actions in their country. Would the Iraqi provisional government, for example, be able to stop U.S. operations of the type mounted recently at Fallujah and Najaf, both of which were strongly condemned even by members of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council? Yes it would, according to Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair. He said today that the Iraqi authority would exercise political control over major operations of Coalition forces, and added that his answer also described the position of the U.S. But within hours, Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared to dismiss Blair’s answer, stressing that U.S. forces would answer to U.S. commanders, and that although they would consult with the Iraqi government, any time the two sides were in conflict the U.S. forces would do whatever they deemed necessary to protect themselves. The appearance of discord between London and Washington on this question certainly won’t help them persuade more skeptical members of the Security Council such as France and Russia.

Iraqis have a substantially different view of the nature of the security problem in their country from the one President Bush outlined. "Coalition forces and the Iraqi people have the same enemies," said President Bush, "the terrorists, illegal militia and Saddam loyalists, who stand between the Iraqi people and their future as a free nation." He suggested that after June 30, "when (Iraqis) patrol the streets of Baghdad or engage radical militias they will be fighting for their own country." But engaging "radical militias" has been very much an American idea, rather than an Iraqi one. So strong was Iraqi opposition to the U.S. offensive at Fallujah that up to half of the Iraqi troops sent there disobeyed deployment orders, and at least one politician resigned from the Governing Council. Later, a broad cross-section of Iraqi politicians warned that the U.S. military campaign against Moqtada Sadr and his supporters was creating more of a problem than Sadr himself represented.

Even the most moderate Iraqi politicians have tended to see U.S. military action as part of the problem. President Bush doesn't tell his audience the whole story when he notes, in reference to Sadr's militia, that "ordinary Iraqis have marched in protest against the militants." It is certainly true that the confrontations in the Shiite holy cities of Najaf and Karbala prompted thousands of Shiites to march demanding that Sadr's Mehdi army withdraw from those cities — but in most cases, those protesters were equally, if not more, insistent that the U.S. troops withdraw, too.

~snip~
more:http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,642021,00.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-04 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
1. Hmmm The Iraqis should talk to the American Indian about "Treaties"
in the name of "Full sovereignty".

The Indian Reservations provide full sovereignty. We're still tying to Christianize those pagan heathens.

I believe the Iraqis are much like the Indians of the America's. They won't be subjected to slavery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-04 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
2. Iraq's new government will be just a slightly reshuffled version

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040531/IRAQ31/TPInternational/Africa
raqis distrust new leaders, analysts say
Many believe U.S. will be too powerful in the post-handover government

By GEOFFREY YORK
Monday, May 31, 2004 - Page A10

The U.S.-led military coalition will remain in effective control of the country. Its troop strength will remain the same. And now it appears that Iraq's new government will be just a slightly reshuffled version of the unpopular U.S.-appointed council that currently heads the government.

After a weekend of wrangling and horse-trading, there were mounting signs that Iraq's new government will be composed largely of the same people who hold official posts today, despite earlier promises that a United Nations envoy would recruit fresh faces for a government of technocrat
(snip)

The U.S.-led military coalition will remain in effective control of the country. Its troop strength will remain the same. And now it appears that Iraq's new government will be just a slightly reshuffled version of the unpopular U.S.-appointed council that currently heads the government.

After a weekend of wrangling and horse-trading, there were mounting signs that Iraq's new government will be composed largely of the same people who hold official posts today, despite earlier promises that a United Nations envoy would recruit fresh faces for a government of technocrat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wright Patman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-04 08:50 AM
Response to Original message
3. Still haven't given up on the oil
Check out that executive order Bush signed around the same time he declared "Mission Accomplished." That signature legitimized in his mind and that of the Western oil oligopoly from whose ranks he came the theft of 110 billion barrels of oil.

He will never give up and will fight to the last American "sovereignty force member" over there to retain that booty, in spite of all attempts to "shake" his booty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderator DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-04 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
4. Locking.
I won't delete this since there were a couple of good replies...

Main thread at;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x54011
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC