They said they had moved up the date of the ceremony and held it in nearly total secrecy to foil possible terrorist plots. Standing amid an array of gilded furniture left behind by Saddam, Bremer handed Ayad Allawi, the new Iraqi prime minister, a leather-encased note from President George W. Bush, indicating that the U.S.-led military occupation had formally ended.
posted on June 28, 2004 08:26:08 PM new
Nearthesea, I agree, yes it is a very good thing that the U.S. occupation is "Officially" over. Now we will see how many more U.S. troops get killed or wounded and how many more billions the U.S. spends. We finally, totally need to get the hell out of Iraq 100%. I am with you and want all the killing, wounding and spending to stop. This is the second time from this government I have heard the word "Officially." Remember when our government said something like this, THE IRAQ WAR IS OFFICIALLY OVER, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED and now the same government is saying the "U.S. OCCUPATION OF IRAQ IS OFFICIALLY OVER." The Iraq war will be over when there is no more killing, wounding or spending.
posted on June 29, 2004 12:22:14 AM new
Had to laugh at how fast Bremer got his butt out of Iraq !!!!!That's why he wanted it two days early ...so HE could get out before the reaction set in!
posted on June 29, 2004 08:12:22 AM new
"I hope Americans, as they increasingly turn against the Iraq war (with every reason in the world) will not repeat the error of some in the 1970s, who despised Vietnam vets along with the Vietnam war. One officer confessed to me last fall when things were obviously turning bad."
*********
I think this statement is wrong. The Vietnam Vets in our area are very active and are highly respected in this community. Why would anyone dispise (bad word) those Vets?
Does this writer not think that President Bush doesn't think the same way? Just because he (Bush) isn't vocal about the war like Mr. Kerry is about it and everything else doesn't mean he isn't thinking about it.
Remember Mr. Kerry is looking for the democratic nomination and he will say
anything to persuade you to vote for him.
Notice this writer refers to only One officer. He can make an assumption on that.
posted on June 29, 2004 08:23:41 AM new
I guess we need to start tracking all these dates:
Major Combat Over: May 2, 2003
US Occupation Over: June 28, 2004
War officially Over: TBD
All US troops sent home: TBD
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
June is Gay Pride Month
------------------------------
All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
Change is constant. The history of mankind is about change. One set of beliefs is pushed aside by a new set. The old order is swept away by the new. If people become attached to the old order, they see their best interest in defending it. They become the losers. They become the old order and in turn are vulnerable. People who belong to the new order are winners.
James A Belaco & Ralph C. Stayer
posted on June 29, 2004 10:11:35 AM new
Libra said, I think this statement is wrong. The Vietnam Vets in our area are very active and are highly respected in this community. Why would anyone dispise (bad word) those Vets?
I bought a copy of the book, Vietnam, by Stanley Karnow and this letter to the editor of a newspaper was inside the book. It illustrates a war mismanaged by several administrations resulting in U.S. defeat but not a defeat caused by the U.S. troops. Nevertheless this defeat was translated by some in the public and to some troops as a military failure.
Instead of celebratory returns of the troops, they came home with little mention only to have to continue their battle in gaining respect and employment while living with horrific injuries and mistreatment as veterans.
The letter.....
"I was a U.S. infantry officer and spent my tour in Vietnam as an advisor to the South Vietnamese. Perhaps I am over-sensitive to the word "defeat." The current Vietnamese Premier, Pham Van Dong, was quoted in the article saying "Yes, we defeated the United States."
...I observed a different story. We worked with proud troops and people who were willing to take the often-fatal risk to get a chance at a democracy. These were not crooked politicians in Saigon, but men and women in the fight, in the country, encouraged by the concept of freedom as they had never known it.
...We fought hard. We were not defeated by the North Vietnamese. We were beaten by the inside out. We were betrayed by politicians, both U.S. and South Vietnamese, by U.S.civilian government officials using Vietnam for the big career move, and by some U.S. military brass who were using the war for their career advancement. Of course the media, then and now, made hype and sold papers by missing the point.
...Yes, I am still personally frustrated after all these years. My family does not understand my part in the war, nor do my business partners or anyone else who did not fight and live with the South Vietnamese. I am not looking for self gratification. I am one of the lucky Vietnam veterans who has become a successful businessman. I am not sure what I am looking for, but I do know I cannot accept journalists throwing around the word defeat with callous disregard for the facts."
posted on June 29, 2004 10:43:49 AM new
::I want the troops home also
But for crying out loud, I'd think someone would think this was a good thing.
They did it 2 days early to avoid any attacks, and you guys know that.::
It is only a good thing if it exists somewhere other than on paper. The fact that we are calling back retire forces in order to increase our numbers and have said that we are going to keep a troup level of over 120K until the end of next year makes you wonder though.
How can you deem the occupation to be over if you are increasing rather than decreasig your troop numbers?
As for why they did it two days early - Of course it was for safety reasons - and quite honestly one of the smartest movest moves we have made.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 29, 2004 10:44:27 AM newI cannot accept journalists throwing around the word defeat with callous disregard for the facts.
This is a common refrain from ex-soldiers ignorant of history.
"Winning" has nothing to do with how many battles were won or how gun-ho anybody was, nor how brave or committed the combatants were.
Who won a conflict has to do with not so much with the events of the war but the with aftermath.
Who lost WWII and who won WWII ? The Japanese and Germans ? Nope.
The biggest loser as measured by the aftermath was the Soviet Union. Japan and Germany flourished after WWII.
Who won the Vietnam war and who lost ? It seems we won and the Vietnamese lost. But not because we won all the battles, but because we got out of there. It is obvious why the Vietnamese lost.
It makes no difference who wins the battles, it is who wins the peace that matters.
posted on June 29, 2004 02:25:59 PM new
NearTheSea - It was a very smart move to do this, imo. Many were worried that on the day and time originally set for this ceremony...the insurgents would only cause a terrible scene. Since their agreements were completed...there was no reason to wait the additional two days.
I think it was a GREAT way to handle it. A surprise to all.
----------
neroter - Just because he (Bush) isn't vocal about the war like Mr. Kerry is.
ahhh...you were right about kerry speaking about it while campaigning.....but incorrect, imo, about this President not being vocal. He is vocal....each and everytime he appears before our troops and visits their bases..etc....he tells them how important what they are doing is.
Imo, it's just that the liberal media AREN'T reporting nor showing these videos ...therefore..opinions like yours are formed....because of media bias and lack of full and balanced reporting.
-------------
Since kerry has been calling for MORE troops to be sent over there....I find kerry sliding to the center and getting closer to the policy of this President...rather than speaking about bringing our troops home - straight-away.
posted on June 30, 2004 06:33:18 PM new
Soldiers from the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps stand at attention
during a June 1st transfer of authority ceremony
The so-called transition to sovereignty for Iraq set for June 30
has been trumpeted as a turning point by the Bush administration.
It is hard to see, however, what exactly it changes. A symbolic act
like a turnover of sovereignty cannot supply security, which is likely
to deteriorate further as insurgents attempt to destabilize the new, weak
government. The caretaker government, appointed by outsiders,
does not represent the will of the Iraqi people. Some 138,000 U.S. troops
remain in the country and the U.S. embassy in Baghdad will be the largest
in the world, both of which bode ill for any exercise of genuine sovereignty
by Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.
The caretaker government faces five key issues, any one of which could be destabilizing.
It must jumpstart the creation of an Iraqi army that could hope to restore security.
It must find a way to hold free and fair elections by next January, a difficult trick to pull off
given the daily toll of bombings and assassinations. It must get hospitals, water treatment plants
and other essential services back to acceptable levels. It must keep the country’s various factions
from fighting one another or from pulling away in a separatist drive. And it must negotiate between
religious and secularist political forces.
posted on June 30, 2004 06:42:18 PM new
continued...
The issue of separatism already has arisen. The U.N. resolution that created the new government
neglected to mention the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) or temporary constitution
passed by the Interim Governing Council under American auspices in February. Grand
Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the spiritual leader of most of Iraq’s majority Shiite population, had warned
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan against endorsing that document. The TAL calls for a secular legal code
and gives the minority Kurds a veto over the permanent constitution, to be hammered out by an elected
parliament in spring of 2005. Sistani objects to the Kurds’ veto. The major Kurdish leaders, for their part,
worry that the United Nations and the Bush administration might go back on the promises made to the Kurds
of semi-autonomy and special minority rights. Some angrily threatened to secede from Iraq if that should happen.
The creation of the caretaker government, which was supposed to help resolve problems of instability, instead
has provoked a major crisis with one major Iraqi ethnic group.
Early last January a member of the U.S.-appointed Interim Governing Council (IGC) in Iraq, Mahmoud Osman,
gave a revealing interview to Al-Hayat of London. He said that officials of the Bush administration in Iraq had
been “extremely offended” when the IGC called for U.N. involvement in the transition to Iraqi sovereignty.
The administration, he explained, did not want any international actor to participate in this process;
rather it wanted to reap the benefits in order to increase President Bush’s political stock in the months
leading up to the November election. He added: “The fundamental issue for Iraqis is the return of sovereignty.
The Americans are in a hurry for it, as well, though for their own interests. The important thing for the Americans
is to ensure the reelection of George Bush. The achievement of a specific accomplishment in Iraq,
such as the transfer of power, increases, in the eyes of the Republican Party, the chances that Bush will be reelected.”
In the end, Sistani and other Iraqi politicians forced Bush to involve the United Nations and to seek a Security
Council resolution. He also was forced to give away far more actual sovereignty to the caretaker government
than he would have liked in order to get the U.N. resolution he had not originally wanted. In particular,
the U.S. military must now consult with the Iraqi government before undertaking major military actions.
But is the turnover really much of an accomplishment? All that has happened is that the Bush administration
worked with special U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi to appoint the four top officers of state and the cabinet
ministers. This group of appointees will then be declared the sovereign government of Iraq.
Iraq already had the U.S.-appointed IGC, consisting of 25 Iraqi politicians, many of them longtime expatriates
associated with significant Iraq parties or ethnic constituencies. They had in turn already appointed cabinet ministers.
Why is a second appointed government better? Moreover, the overlap between the two is substantial.
Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, the leader of the Iraqi National Accord, a group of ex-Baath officers
and officials who had fallen out with Saddam, was an influential member of the IGC. Allawi’s group
engaged in terrorist actions against the Saddam regime with backing from the Central Intelligence Agency.
Consequently, his emergence as prime minister is something of an embarrassment to both countries.
And it was Allawi’s Iraqi National Accord that also provided false intelligence to the Bush administration
and the Blair government about the dangers of Saddam’s regime.
[ edited by Helenjw on Jun 30, 2004 06:49 PM ]
