Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
It sounds like they read my post the other day and understand how important it is to hand power back to any part of Iraq that shows its able to control itself. Obviously joking, but I fully expect them to start organizing localized elections in any place they have not done so yet.
|
This is talking about handing power back on the national level. From what I've read lately, there's no reason to think the Governing Council is able to control things. All else equal, it's clearly a better idea to let the Iraqis run things, but recent events don't suggest that we should be accelerating that shift.
Quote:
|
Is your problem with it the fact that it seems to be driven by unfortunate events? If so, then I agree that it is a problem. This shit should have been announced months ago.
|
Not exactly -- my problem is that it likely
is driven by unfortunate events.
edited to add:
I'm not the
only one to interpret this as a path to an early exit.
"Administration officials have dismissed critics who suggest that the process might be driven by Mr. Bush's electoral needs, taking pains to portray the new approach as Iraqi-born, initiated by Iraqi leaders out of what Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, called a "clamor" for a faster turnover of power.
"Yet until sometime in the past few weeks, Mr. Bremer argued internally that the Iraqis were not ready to assume full authority, and that turning it over before the basic outlines of Iraqi democracy were established would invite chaos, or worse."
Bremer was called back to Washington for high-level consultations recently. He either (a) had a sudden change of heart, and called Cheney to say, 'listen to this, I think they can handle it now, never mind the escalating violence,' or (b) was told to back a new policy. I'm going with (a).
