Someone is going to have to explain this argument to me. I don’t get it.
“We are going to hand over sovereignty to the Iraqis on June 30, come hell or high water.”
“We cannot hand over sovereignty with the current state of affairs in Iraq.”
What are you people talking about? As far as I know, there is absolutely no plan, and no intention, to pull the US military out of Iraq on June 30. There never was, and that isn’t just because of recent violence over there. We never, at no time, had any intention of leaving that country this summer.
What exactly does sovereignty mean to you people? Are you telling me that after we hand over sovereignty, the Iraqis are in charge of their country again? What would happen if they told us to get out? Would we do it? If we stay, is the US military going to be under the authority of the Iraqi government?
I fail to see how we can turn over sovereignty while maintaining the occupation. Someone help me out, here.
Yes, jaj, I realize that. The administration keeps insisting, though, that we are going to hand over sovereignty on JUNE 30. What I’m asking is, how is it we’re going to turn over authority while at the same time maintaining the occupation? Why are people arguing about the date on the Sunday talk shows, etc?
You can’t get *real *sovreignty without the ability to police your own streets and defend your own borders. It will be quite some time before the Iraqi’s will be able to do this. I guess we will be handing over some limited power in civil administration.
Vitus979, you are right there is not a plan to be “out” There is no way we could be. Even before the war there was never any way someone could put a date we would leave. We will probably never be “out” of Iraq, but the power will increasingly be handed back to them as they become stable over time. If were to hand it all to them now and leave it would be like sending a 12 year old child out on their own. The people of Iraq need external pressure from someone (we can argue about if it is just US or coalition or UN etc) to make the decisions they need to make.
I think you are hung up on the word “sovereignty” and that it means they are self sufficient. I can’t cite a source but my guess is this is more of a technical or legal term to describe very specific criteria in political and diplomatic terms not to mean “here it’s yours” The future will bring increasing power to them and a smaller role to the US.
As for what would happen if they told us to get out? Won’t happen. The people at the top of the food chain (and we control the food chain) know that there is more benefit from being nice than telling us to leave, just like a long list of other countries who deal with our presence and just like those countries our military will still be under US command.
Are you expecting a clean cut? That doesn’t seem very reasonable even if things had gone “perfect”. It didn’t happen in other countries after other wars so why would Iraq be different?
2 a: supreme power especially over a body politic b: freedom from external control : AUTONOMYc: controlling influence 3: one that is sovereign; especially: an autonomous state
5280, I am not “hung up” on the word “sovereignty.” I do believe that it has a real meaning. I believe it is being used dishonestly, in order to mislead public opinion. That’s what bugs me. We aren’t going to hand over sovereignty, or power, or authority, or anything else to any Iraqi government anytime soon. Saying there is anything at all significant about June 30 is a lie.
I would be incredibly surprised if we were asked/told to leave immediately. The last thing that al Sistani wants or needs is to face an uprising from either the Sunnis or al Sadr’s people with no support from outside. The fact that they have had to start allowing soldiers who served under Saddam into the Iraqi military in order to both bolster headcount and recruit trained, experienced soldiers is an indicator of how hard it is to accomplish the task at hand(of building an effective, capable national army whose immediate goal is to address domestic threats).
To effectively serve as a soldier or police officer in Iraq, it means putting aside your tribal, familial, and religious affiliations and enforcing laws or obeying orders that are completely new to your experience or contradict your basic beliefs. Think about it: WWII has been over for almost 60 years, and yet many Americans still harbor resentment towards the French and Japanese. These people have been fighting each other for thousands of years, and the notions of national identity only go back about 100 years. Forging a sense of national loyalty through a means other than fear of reprisals will not happen overnight.
Your definitions are exactly why I say hung up, because I think you are using that definition which is reasonable but I don’t think that is the definition that is being used in this context. I am saying I wonder if there are specific legal parameters that qualify for that term in international diplomacy that will be met on 6/30? Misleading, probably because your definition is what most people think he means.
As for it not meaning anything, I disagree. If it is even a small step closer to a solution then it is in the right direction.
What would you be in favor of doing at this point? Do you suggest we should hand over total control at once? If so, when?
Your definitions are exactly why I say hung up, because I think you are using that definition which is reasonable but I don’t think that is the definition that is being used in this context. Those aren’t my definitions, those are the dictionary’s definitions.
I am saying I wonder if there are specific legal parameters that qualify for that term in international diplomacy that will be met on 6/30? Misleading, probably because your definition is what most people think he means. **Please. Maybe there are specific legal parameters for the meaning of “is.” If you’re going to claim there’s some technical definition for sovereignty which differs from the general understanding of the term, please provide it. **
As for it not meaning anything, I disagree. If it is even a small step closer to a solution then it is in the right direction. **That’s a big if. Regardless, whatever happens on June 30 has nothing to do with sovereignty whatsoever. **
What would you be in favor of doing at this point? Do you suggest we should hand over total control at once? If so, when? First of all, I’m in favor of putting a stop to the use of terms that are bandied about with the specific intent to deceive. How’s that for starters?
As usual vitus, you ask good questions. This whole thing is a work in process. Having our troops in country does not mean that the host country is not sovereign. Our troops are in Germany for example.
Presumably the new government would not ask us to leave since we would be the ones protecting them. If we did recognize them as sovereign and they were to ask us to leave, presumably we would.
This country building process will be difficulty and dirty. You are pointing to some of the rough edges. I grant that the inability to answer who will be running the country in 10 weeks does not inspire confidence.
Look at South Korea, Japan, and Germany. We still have troops in all three. The “interim” Iraqi government will not ask us to pull our troops out because they know that they will still be a long way from being able to maintain order at that time. They need us as much as (if not more than) we need them. BTW, not dodging you on the other issue–just trying to get time to put together a cogent response.
I agree that Iraq is a work in progress, and that there are unavoidable ambiguities and uncertainties. I resent the powers that be deliberately using a term like “sovereignty” when they know full well that isn’t what they mean. It’s a purposeful manipulation of public opinion, and it pisses me off.
I think you realize there’s a difference between having troops based in Germany and having troops occupy Iraq.
I don’t really think that whatever “government” we install will ask us to leave on June 30. But if they did, I have absolutely no doubt that we would not honor that request.
ps- I’m still reading that book. It’s giving me a headache. I’ll have my critique up by Friday. Fair warning to the rest of the forum: it’s going to be long, and way way way off-topic.