| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| will "accelerating handover" achieve anything ? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 13 2003, 10:18 PM (546 Views) | |
| nztrekkie | Nov 13 2003, 10:18 PM Post #1 |
|
Lieutenant
|
If Iraq is handed over to Iraqis sooner rather than later, what does that achieve I wonder. I mean, even amongst the hand picked ruling council now there are clashes, rivalries and jockying for position......and that's the "good guys". What will it be like in Iraq if everyone is allowed to have a go ? What of the people who were not wanted on the current council, but who have their own little empires or resources ? Is it likely these other groups and people will embrace the will of the majority (a la democracy) ? Civil war has always been a danger in a post invaded Iraq - hence the care needed in formulating a clear and achievable exit stratedgy. Is a simple acceleration of a handover the answer ? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Nov 13 2003, 10:36 PM Post #2 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
It really depends, Iraq seems to be really turned off by the types of governments that are surrounding them. Other then those that are spurred on by clerics who have everything to gain from a fundamentalist government, democracy seems to be pretty popular with the populace. If terrorists continue to attack Iraq even after Americans turn government over to Iraq, especially if a new Iraqi government is elected by the people, then that will only turn public opinion in the Middle East further against the terrorists. The Arabic media will not distort attacks against fellow Muslims. I personally think that giving Iraq the power to make its own decisions is what we set out to do. If we can do so safely, then the change in power should happen as soon as possible. Will that enable troops to leave? Probably not until Saddam is found. No government in Iraq will be completelly secure until he is caught. If he is found however, a great step in the US legitimizing the new Iraqi government would be to turn Saddam over to them alive. This obviously can't be done if there is a chance that soldiers would be killed in the process but an effort should be made. Once he is in the hands of the new government, his fate will be most certain. There is no way that a new government will allow the former to survive. Considering what he did to his own people, I doubt that the UN or any other group would find the execution immoral. The UN brings up another point. If Iraq is given the authority to make decisions, they may request UN peacekeepers despite American wishes. Polls in Iraq seem to indicate that a majority of citizens would like the UN to be involved, and the new government would know that the US could do nothing about it. If we were to force them to reverse their decision or worse yet disband the new government, all hell would break loose. The big three at the Security Council would not pass up the opportunity to stick it in America's face by taking over and America would be foolish to veto and risk Iraqi ire. Bringing the UN in would not necessarily be a bad thing however. If terrorists attack them, then Germany, Russia, and France would be hard pressed by the other member nations to support the fight against Al-Quida. So yes, give the Iraqis their own government. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Nov 13 2003, 10:38 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
The key word in that sentence is "simple". Why do you assume it is simple? I can see that perhaps accelerating the handover of some authority might serve to ameliorate those who are afraid that the coallition will never leave. I can also see that in the vast majority of Iraq that is pacified it is in the best interest of the coallition to hand over control to the locals to free up resources for more pressing regions. Yes, there are a lot of groups that may have trouble agreeing on government, but that also describes most of the western nations, hey? And, civil war is a real possibility if we pull out early. But I don't think that there is any intent to leave, it is just trying to phase in Iraqi control of their own country.Like I said there are some very successful areas of Iraq that are probably doing better than expected and can be phased in earlier. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Nov 13 2003, 10:54 PM Post #4 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
If the US chose to accelerate the turnover to say within a year from now, Iraq would to put it bluntly, “Go to Hell in a hand-basket.” As much progress that has been made in Iraq (and there has been considerable progress…instituting a new government, public services have been overwhelmingly restored, Police force established to name a few), there is still too much uncertainty right now. It is a transition period that will need to last for a good 3 years minimum. Speaking from a non-military background perspective, it is my impression that it will take at least that long to properly establish and ensure government function, sufficiently crush the current “rabble rousers” and Saddam loyalists and make sure law and order is established and thriving. Not only does the US have to establish services, law and order for the Iraqis, but we also have the overwhelming difficulty of convincing an already mistrustful people that their success as a country depends on them embracing a democratic form of government. This isn't an easy task considering the brain-washing that has taken place under Saddam. I am not advocating that the US stay in Iraq for a decade, but we owe it the Iraqi people to finish what we started. Hopefully this can be accomplished within 3-5 years. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Nov 13 2003, 11:09 PM Post #5 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
But do you think the situation is that unstable? People under totalitarian rule always yearn for freedom unless they think that the rule is necessary. The Iraqi people have lived much of their lives without radical Islamic influence affecting their lives. I personally believe that since they have not been influenced by that, they will naturally float towards democracy instead of another totalitarian regieme. I cite communism as an example. The majority of the people who overthrew the various presidents, czars, and other leaders weren't doing it to submit to a new dictatorship, they were doing it because they were promised freedom by the communist revolutionaries. The people wanted to be able to choose for themselves. HOWEVER, and this is a vital point to make, the communists revolutionaries were able to lie to the people and install a new government and enforcement agency before the common people could find out what was going on and organize a successful movement to suppress it. Iraq will not have the opportunity to lie to its people as the US will be looking over its shoulder for a good many years to come. If we wait for years on end for Iraq to be "ready" to govern itself, then we will be viewed on more and more as the hostile occupiers that the terrorists want them to believe we are. Iraq is home of a great many educated people who have finally been given a chance to choose their own path in life. I say let them have it. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Nov 13 2003, 11:55 PM Post #6 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
Yes I do. And not because I think the people of Iraq to an extent do not want or crave freedom and a form of participatory government. The uncertainty stems from the minority who do not want the Iraqi people to succeed and have self-determination. Right now, that minority still has a small power base in Iraq and in neighboring countries (Syria). Going from a strict totalitarian regime to an open society is difficult enough. When the Soviet Union disbanded, what ensued and to a degree still exists, is lawlessness, high crime rates, terrorism, the mafia, an unstable government, Republics declaring independence, inability of the government to pay their employees and to even provide reliable government services. Initially there was complete chaos. It is 12 years later and Russia is still trying to correct the problems caused by Stalinist Communism. Unlike the former Soviets, Iraqis have the benefit of our help (our manpower and our considerable resources) while they are in this transition.
Agreed. There are many educated and competent people in Iraq...people who will contribute greatly to the betterment of their society. However, the US has made a commitment and if we do not at least provide for a modicum of stability before we pull out of the country, then we come out of this situation even more reviled and hated. I think we will eventually see more compromise (Iraqi Government and Coalition setting a final date for handover). Once this happens, I think it will set more people at ease in the region. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Nov 14 2003, 12:07 AM Post #7 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
There has been a lot of talk about this, but really no one has said that there will be an accelrated turnover of controlling authority. What has been said, by those running the show, is that they are trying to come up with more ways to increase the involvement of the Iraqi Governing Council and Iraqi people in general. The effort that is being expended at the moment is to do all that can be done to illustrate that we are not an occupying force. At least not in the historical sense of the term. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 14 2003, 12:25 AM Post #8 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Um, post-LIBERATED Iraq... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Nov 14 2003, 08:31 AM Post #9 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
Good one ABG, I didn't pick up on that particular gem. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Nov 16 2003, 05:17 PM Post #10 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
Alright, just heard on the news that sovereignty will be handed over to the Iraqi Government June 2004. With the assumption that the new Iraqi government will allow (ask) troops to stay in Iraq to assist in various aspects. I originally predicted that if we accelerated the turnover to within one year, Iraq would not fair very well. I was operating under the assumption that all troops would be leaving Iraq at that time. Since, our troops most likely will be staying in Iraq past the turnover date…I predict a more positive transition. I would like to say though, that I want the troops out of Iraq within a reasonable amount of time (Iraqi/US joint decision...possibly hold an Iraqi referrendum to better represent the desires of the Iraqi people). I know the tendency of our government/DOD is to establish permanent bases in countries that we liberated, occupied (whatever term you wish). In these cases, we did so not only for strategic reasons, but to act as a stabilizing force in the region (Japan, DMZ). However, if our troops stay in Iraq I fear the opposite will be true. Case in point…US presence in Saudi Arabia (extreme anti-American sentiment leading to terrorist bombings against Marine barracks). I am not discounting the additional problems presented as a result of Saudi Arabia being the home of Mecca. Additionally, the US already has a power base in Qatar. Qatar isn't as centrally and strategically located as Iraq is, but won't this power base be sufficient enough? Here is a link to Iraqi story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103168,00.html |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| fireh8er | Nov 16 2003, 07:03 PM Post #11 |
|
I'm Captain Kirk!
|
I feel that handing over power the Iraqis too soon could really bad! First of all, the country has not been totally secured. Without the proper amount of boots on the ground, securing the country and enforcing the laws will be very hard task. The Iraqis people are well armed. They are weapon caches everywhere. Without security, the world's organizations who came to help the Iraqis people are in harm's way. So the Iraqi people slip father and farther away from us. Second, they have no governing body. I know that they have a government council led by an american offical. The question is will the Iraqi people accept the new government sponsered by the United States? In my honest opinion, the Iraqi people will not accepted anything that has the stamp of the United States of America. Then the most well armed warlord will carve up the country as he wishes. Who's to say that he may be friendly to us ? With a country of disgruntled people who may be hungry, without the essential services and walk around with firearms spells trouble in my book! So handing over power to a country whom is not ready to govern themselves is total is madness! They are supposed to handed the reigns of powers in June of 2004. In my opinion, that is way too soon. We have came into their country into and removed the government and destroyed their infrastructure. I'm no fan of Saddam Hussien. But are obligated to the Iraqis people to restore law and order! It might take five to ten years! We need to get the world's help and stay the course into the job is done. Fireh8er |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Nov 16 2003, 09:03 PM Post #12 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
The US Army is still staying in there to provide security, we're just letting the Iraqis have more say in their own government. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Nov 17 2003, 07:11 AM Post #13 |
|
Admiral
|
What happens if the day after elections in Iraq the new leader orders allied troops to leave Iraq immediatley and, for example, tears up all the contracts the present admin has made with American companies and makes new ones or goes for renationalisation? As for this 'post-liberation' business, we INVADED a SOVERIEGN country and we are now OCCUPYING that country. Thats the facts of the matter however we prefer to justify it. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Nov 17 2003, 08:56 AM Post #14 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
That should be old hat to you guys by now But seriously, you say all that INVADED and OCCUPYING a SOVERIEGN country as if that automatically implies that it is bad. Was it bad in 1945? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 17 2003, 10:16 AM Post #15 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
I suppose then that you'd prefer that the leader of that sovereign country, Saddam Hussein al Tikriti, was still in power? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



And, civil war is a real possibility if we pull out early. But I don't think that there is any intent to leave, it is just trying to phase in Iraqi control of their own country.
I feel that handing over power the Iraqis too soon could really bad!

2:14 PM Jul 11