April 28, 2004
ON OR AHEAD OF SCHEDULE:
U.N. Envoy Seeks New Iraq Council by Close of May (WARREN HOGE, 4/28/04, NY Times)
The special United Nations envoy for Iraq, offering a speeded-up timetable for the selection of a caretaker government in Baghdad, said Tuesday that the new government should be chosen a full month before sovereignty is transferred on June 30 to give it time to define its authority.Addressing the Security Council, the envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, said the month would be necessary for the transitional leaders to reach "crystal-clear understandings" of their relationship to the occupation authority they would replace and to the American military commanders who are to remain in charge of Iraqi security forces.
In his first extensive public comments since outlining his plans for an interim government earlier this month, Mr. Brahimi also said the occupants of the government's top posts should insulate themselves from partisan activity by agreeing not to be candidates in national elections next year.
Although he did not say so specifically, that seemed to rule out a role in the caretaker government for prominent Iraqis now in the American-picked Iraqi Governing Council, including the heads of political parties who are expected to contest the June 2005 elections.
Though the Left and the neocons want to slow the process and keep us there until November or forever, respectively, the process should instead be speeded up. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 28, 2004 8:24 AM
"Though the Left and the neocons want to slow the process and keep us there until November or forever, respectively, the process should instead be speeded up."
I guess I'm dense but I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Keep us where forever? Involved in Iraqi government? In Iraq? Are you thinking that once an Iraqi government is established we'll pull our troops and move on? As far as speeding up the process of selecting or electing the government, ever heard of the old bromide, "measure twice cut once"?
Posted by: NC3 at April 28, 2004 10:23 AMDemocrats want us there for partisan political reasons. Neocons dream of empire.
Once an Iraqi government is established we'll do what they ask us to do. If they need help with security will stay in some number, but if they want us gone we'll go.
Posted by: oj at April 28, 2004 10:36 AMPerhaps you can post an article or suggest some reading that would elaborate on your position. I'm no geopolitical expert but I do tend to get nervous when the words neocon and empire are placed in the same sentence by a respected conservative writer.
Iraqi security is important but it seems clear to me their welfare and internal or external security was never the reason for our expenditure of blood and treasure. It was our security and welfare that was and still is the issue. How does some cobbled together government made up of warring factions with Islam as their only common denominator make you feel better about the situation?
I'll take a one hundred year lease on the ground our new bases are sitting on and a treaty that gives us free reign to do what we will need to do inside Iraq to fight our enemies. Call it Neocon Imperialism if you want. I can live with that better than I can live with an unchecked nuclear Islamic Confederacy.
Posted by: NC3 at April 28, 2004 9:30 PMNC3:
That's empire--imposing 100 year leases and "free reign" and the like. We're not going to have those things.
Posted by: oj at April 28, 2004 10:27 PMBanning the current Governing Council members is a bad idea: The French did it, and got screwed. The Americans didn't, and did just fine.
Posted by: Ptah at April 29, 2004 8:37 PM