Pre-Occupied
Paul Bremer is leaving the U.S. no wiggle room on the June 30 deadline for transfer of (some) power in Iraq. This despite the fact that U.S. commanders in Iraq are looking at the possibilities for bringing more troops into the country should the present spasm of violence escalate.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I see June 30, but I don't see a year specified. Is that his wiggle room?
June 30 doesn't mean we're leaving, Mike. It means Iraq will be a sovereign country run by a US puppet government and we will be an official occupying force. That's when the fun begins.
Oh, I know. We'll have troops in Iraq for at least a generation - just ask Germany and Japan.
As for the puppet government, I think you're wrong, but we shall see.
Er, to further clarify my idiot-like remarks:
The complaint that some Iraqis have is that we will, in fact, set up a puppet government. (I didn't mean that we'd actually leave the country on June 30.) We'll stick around in order to protect the democratic government from insurgents. The trick though, as you've alluded to Gladfly, is convincing the majority that it's actually not a US-run sham of a government and that it's really Iraqis electing their government.
It's not at all going to be "easy," but then again, I'd hope that my fellow Iraq-hawks realized this going in...
Incredible times we're living in here, kids.
Well...that is sending a clear statement, "We said June 30th and we mean June 30th."
I can't really complain about it too much. Although, if the violence really escalates, it would undermine the legitimacy of the Iraqi governing council.
One of the base complaints of Sadr's "army" is that the US doesn't actually intend to leave Iraq. This is why it's so important for the June 30 date to remain firm.
Dubya's gonna have to pack it in.
Isn't the handwriting on the wall clear?
He'd lose to the dogcatcher in November because of this debacle.
The Republican convention may have some real decisions to make.
I don't know, I saw plenty of wiggle room in what he said. I guess if pressed they can always officially hand over things then without it meaning anything, but let's remember the whole premature handover was always set to please the international (and American) naysayers who will never be happy in any case.
June 30 doesn't mean we're leaving, Mike. It means Iraq will be a sovereign country run by a US puppet government and we will be an official occupying force. That's when the fun begins.
All I have to say is...
"Read my lips; No new taxes"