NYT: "the only unifying theme [is] desperation"

[nostamj]

At times, the only unifying theme for Washington's policies seems to be desperation. American field commanders have now signed over the city of Falluja to former officers of the same Baathist army they came to Iraq to fight a little more than a year ago. The original plan of having American marines storm Falluja to avenge the mob murders of four private contractors there was not a wise idea. Handing over the town to these politically ambitious soldiers looks even more shortsighted. Subcontracting security and territory out to rival Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish warlords can only increase the risks of an eventual civil war.

<snip>

If any of the goals Americans wanted to achieve in Iraq can still be salvaged, it will take more than fumbling crisis management driven by the needs of the Bush re-election campaign. A clear and coherent new course needs to be set without further delay, beginning with aggressive policy and personnel changes to undo the damage of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The U.N. should be given clear authority over transitional political arrangements after June 30, with Washington fully backing Mr. Brahimi's efforts to assemble a caretaker government of credible Iraqis who are not associated with the occupation and are willing to put aside their own political ambitions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/15/opinion/15SAT1.html

[Spazito]

1. Good editorial but...

it misses a key point, imo. When I see this in the article:

"If any of the goals Americans wanted to achieve in Iraq"

The bush admin neocons will NOT give up control of Iraq's resources and the intent to have permanent bases there, that was and is their goal, not "democratization of Iraq".

The only way this will change is if there is "total war" within the bush admin between the moderates and the neocons with the end result being the neocons lose. I see signs that battles are being fought between them but no clear winner yet.

[mike_c]

2. good point-- the press, the politicians, and most of the people...

...are dancing around these issues as though there wasn't an elephant in the living room-- the real, and largely hidden, reasons for invading and occupying Iraq. The Iraqis, their government, social problems, and the busines opportunites created for American corporations, are simply incidental to the real neo-con objectives.

[nodictators]

3. Articles like this frame a Big Lie

The claimed "goals" are democracy, independence and stabilization for Iraq. The "handover of power" supposedly gives Iraq sovereignty.

The reality is that the handover or power is from Bremer to Negroponte. The "sovereignty" for Iraqis will be limited control of a few ministeries.

They won't be able to tell US forces to leave. They won't be able to write laws. They won't be able to amend the laws Bremer has written.

How do you say, "Puppet Government?"