May 19, 2004
LET THEM GOVERN:
Legislators press Bush to speed Iraqi vote (Brian Knowlton, May 19, 2004, IHT)
Top administration officials faced sharp bipartisan questioning in Congress on Tuesday about the costs of remaining in Iraq, and key lawmakers called for the administration to accelerate its handover of power to Iraqis.Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, did say that the administration would request no further funds for the reconstruction of Iraq, partly because revenues from Iraqi oil fields have recovered more quickly than anticipated.
But his appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee drew unusual expressions of concern, and even anguish, about the Iraq war. Many senators of both parties seemed rattled by the prison abuse scandal, the assassination Monday of a key Iraqi official and the surge in violence that made April the deadliest month for U.S. troops in a year.
With public support shaken as well, said Senator Lincoln Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, ‘‘There’s cause for alarm.’’ Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, a widely respected Republican who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee, has pressed the administration for weeks to answer important questions about what will happen on June 30, when limited sovereignty is to be given to Iraqis, and afterward.
He urged it Tuesday to do everything possible to accelerate reconstruction and the political transition, to speed elections and to step up talks on a new UN resolution on sovereignty and other matters.
Delays, Lugar said, ‘‘undercut United States credibility and increase suspicions among Iraqis.’’ He called for opening a U.S. embassy in Baghdad even before June 30.
‘‘We have considerably speeded up the transition to sovereignty,’’ Wolfowitz said. ‘‘We have enormously speeded up both the speed and the level of effort in equipping Iraqi security forces.’’
This is helpful pressure though it should have begun last year. The Iraqi people justifiably distrust us after we left Saddam in power in 1991. A fuller turnover of sovereignty is necessary to demonstrate that we're serious about them running their own affairs. The transfer of control will have a greater impact in the Middle East than deposing Saddam did--they know we'll remove governments we don't like, but will be stunned that we'll create governments we can't control. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 19, 2004 9:13 AM
If I remember correctly 8 of the 25 ministries have been handed over to Iraq control with the remainder scheduled to be handed over by June.
That said, it's getting hard to distinguish the politicalos calling for the US to get out quickly vs. those criticizing the US for cutting and running.
Wasn't there something on the blogs indicating that the lion's share of the $18 billion hasn't been spent yet.
Was this part of a plan? Wait for the 6/30, and then shower Iraq with dollars so that all the news is good for at least 5 months?
Clever if it works.
Posted by: BB at May 19, 2004 9:40 AMStrange thing is, Rumsfeld has long pushed for a faster handover, only to be outflanked on the left by people like Colin Powell who want to "ready" everything for the handover, and on the right (or neo-right) by people like Kristol/Kagan and McCaffrey/Peters, who think the answer is More Troops, Greater Occupation, Let's Show 'Em We're In Charge! (at least that was once a Kristol/Kagan position, but who knows where they are this week).
Glad that Congress is getting on board with Rumsfeld. Really, the handover should have taken place no more than one year after Saddam's statue tumbled. It would have been symbolic as well as prudent.
Posted by: kevin whited at May 19, 2004 11:35 AM