Iraq Regains Sovereignty

[Mercutio]

Surprise, surprise!

Iraq Regains Sovereignty After 15-Month Occupation

June 28 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S.-led coalition authority handed sovereignty over to Iraq today, two days ahead of schedule, to thwart terrorism and give the initiative to the interim Iraqi government, a coalition spokeswoman said.

Ambassador Paul Bremer ``handed legal authority'' to Iraq's Chief Justice Medhat Mahmud in a ceremony at 10:30 a.m. local time, Victoria Whitford said in a phone interview from Baghdad. The handover, which was scheduled for Wednesday, was brought forward at the request of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, ``who was ready to take control and put his policies into force,'' she said. Bremer later left the country, Sky News reported.

Bush Hails Transfer of Power in Iraq

From Associated Press

ISTANBUL, Turkey — President Bush celebrated the early transfer of political power to Iraqis today, declaring that "the Iraqi people have their country back."

Bush's statement came 15 months after he ordered the invasion against Saddam Hussein and his country. Bush stood with Prime Minister Tony Blair, a key coalition partner, at a NATO summit here.

"We have kept our word" to deliver freedom and a new government to the Iraqi people, Bush said.

Bush acknowledged the ongoing attacks that have killed more people since major combat ended than during the war itself. More than 800 American soldiers have died in Iraq.

"Their brutal attacks have not prevented Iraqi sovereignty and they will not prevent Iraqi democracy," Bush said.

The president spoke a few hours after the U.S.-led coalition handed off power to the interim Iraqi government, two days ahead of schedule.

"Fifteen months after the liberation of Iraq and two days ahead of schedule, the world witnessed the arrival of a full sovereign and free Iraq," the president said.

Bush marked the transfer with a whispered comment and a handshake with Blair, gathered with world leaders around a table at a NATO summit. Stealing a glance at his watch to make sure the transfer had occurred, Bush put his hand over his mouth to guard his remarks, leaned toward Blair and then put out his hand for a shake. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, a row behind the president, beamed.

"They've all given their lives in the cause of trying to give a better and different future to the people of Iraq," Blair said at the news conference with Bush, noting the death of another British soldier today.

The insurgents' goal, he said, have a "very clear and simple objective" -- "to try and prevent Iraq becoming a symbol of hope."

Blair and Bush had stood firm against the opposition of most of the rest of the world. Their comments about the handover were somewhat muted, against the backdrop of many months of bloodshed.

[jerseydevil]

It was a great coup against the terrorists. It was felt they would be making heavy attacks on the 30th to draw attention away from the occasion. Now Iraq has control again and Bremer has left Iraq. I'm usre there will be attacks on the 30th still, but it's sort of destroyed the reason. They are no longer attacking the "US" - but now they will be attacking a sovereign country they are supposedly "fighting for".

It was a great maneuver to hand over sovereignty early and unexpectedly.

[brownjenkins]

good first step... i look forward to elections in the hopefully near future

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
good first step... i look forward to elections in the hopefully near future

they were saying what...January? for free elections? Only 6 months, that's impressive.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Mercutio
they were saying what...January? for free elections? Only 6 months, that's impressive.

yeah - it is in January. There is NO WAy there could have been elections sooner. Right now they have a representative government which was chosen by the Iraqi Security Council. Brownjenkins - Afganistan hasn't had free elections YET and no one is bitching and moaning there. They are preparing for them though. I agree with Mercutio - it is impressive that elections are scheduled to take place in only 6 months. There is a lot of work to do in that time period.

During the Revolution - the US worked under a nonelected government - the Continental Congress. The Constitutional Convention was also a nonelected body.

[Radagast]

It is disgraceful and disrespectful to the British people that the British Prime Minister was not informed about the change of the transfer date. It is time Blair stopped insulting the British people by accepting every thing done by the Bush Administration.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Radagast
It is disgraceful and disrespectful to the British people that the British Prime Minister was not informed about the change of the transfer date. It is time Blair stopped insulting the British people by accepting every thing done by the Bush Administration.

? Are you sure ?

Bush only knew of the possiblity for the past few days and was informed of it last night. Other members of the coalition learned early today (and yes, earlier as in before it actually happened).

Blair and Bush Hail Iraq Handover

By Jon Smith, Political Editor, PA News, in Istanbul

Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George Bush today hailed the birth of a new Iraq after the early transfer of power to Baghdad.

Mr Bush said the world had witnessed “the arrival of a free, sovereign Iraqi government”.

He said that after “decades of brutal rule” the Iraqi people “have their country back”.

The President went on: “This is a day of great hope for Iraq”.

Mr Blair, speaking alongside Mr Bush at the Nato summit in Istanbul, told reporters: “Today’s obviously an important staging post on the journey of the people of Iraq towards a new future – one in which democracy replaces dictatorship, where freedom replaces oppression and in which all the people of Iraq can look forward to the possibility and the hope of an Iraq that genuinely unites, a future for people from whatever part of Iraq they come.”

Sovereignty was transferred to Baghdad early this morning, two days ahead of schedule.

At 10.26am Baghdad time the White House said Mr Blair and Mr Bush looked at their watches, which they had synchronised and nodded at each other to acknowledge the handover of power.

President Bush knew about the possibility for several days, and received final word Sunday evening, the official said, speaking anonymously as part of a "background briefing."

Other members of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq were notified early Monday, the official said.

Here is the press briefing from the white house.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Radagast
It is disgraceful and disrespectful to the British people that the British Prime Minister was not informed about the change of the transfer date. It is time Blair stopped insulting the British people by accepting every thing done by the Bush Administration.

What do you mean he didn't know? I as far as I have heard - he was fully aware of it. It was just that him and Bush were waiting for it. Sorry - but we were the leaders in the coalition - so it was our president that first got word and then passed it onto Blair that the transfer had actually taken place. They werwe sitting right next to each other at the NATO summit and when Bush got word - he whispered to Blair that it had taken place and they shook hands.

Even Chirac had word that the handover was coming early - just not the actual time supposedly.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Mercutio
? Are you sure ?

Bush only knew of the possiblity for the past few days and was informed of it last night. Other members of the coalition learned early today (and yes, earlier as in before it actually happened).

Yeah - there was no slight against Britain or Blair by Bush. Blair was fully expecting the handover today, along with Bush.

[Mercutio]

Its nice NATO is going to pitch in.

NATO Smoothes Rifts and Agrees to Help Iraq

They will (for one thing) train security forces for the new gov.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Its nice NATO is going to pitch in.

NATO Smoothes Rifts and Agrees to Help Iraq

They will (for one thing) train security forces for the new gov.

France is pretty pissed about it - at least according to French News. The agreement was made even before the summit. They did the same thing they did with protecting Turkey during the Iraq war. They left France out of the discussions. I'm not sure if Germany was part of it though. France has said it will train Iraqi police OUTSIDE Iraq - but it's forces will not enter Iraq at all.

[Radagast]

Alright then, I apologise for my erroneous statement.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
yeah - it is in January. There is NO WAy there could have been elections sooner. Right now they have a representative government which was chosen by the Iraqi Security Council. Brownjenkins - Afganistan hasn't had free elections YET and no one is bitching and moaning there. They are preparing for them though. I agree with Mercutio - it is impressive that elections are scheduled to take place in only 6 months. There is a lot of work to do in that time period.

there were actually more than a few who thought elections could have happened easily by now... or maybe sooner... many talked of using the oil-for-food cards as a registration method, which i've heard were held by 97% of the iraqi population

the fact is, perception is reality, and whether or not the current government was brought about by iraqis... many will see it as chosen by the US

not 'bitching and moaning'... cautious optimism

During the Revolution - the US worked under a nonelected government - the Continental Congress. The Constitutional Convention was also a nonelected body.

i hope we've gotten a bit better since the 1700s

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
there were actually more than a few who thought elections could have happened easily by now... or maybe sooner... many talked of using the oil-for-food cards as a registration method, which i've heard were held by 97% of the iraqi population

the fact is, perception is reality, and whether or not the current government was brought about by iraqis... many will see it as chosen by the US

not 'bitching and moaning'... cautious optimism

Most experts INCLUDING the Un did not think elections could have happened sooner. Of course there are always people who think that an election can just just be thrown together. I wonder - who would have done the counting? Who would have protected the polling places from attacks? Oh - I could just picture the huge turn out right now - as the country is wracked by terrorist attacks.

Most of the Iraqis seem to be viewing the government as THEIR government right now. The nay-sayers said that the US would control the selection process. It's funny though - many people we did not support were chosen for the intergnum goverment.

i hope we've gotten a bit better since the 1700s

I don't think the Constitutional Convention or the Continental Congress did a bad job. It gave us the Declaration of Independce, our Constition, freedom and the great country we will live in today. It would have been impossible to have had elections then. The people were chosen based on their knowledge. Yeah and I see your wink.

[Mercutio]

Chirac said that having a NATO presence inside Iraq would be "misunderstood" and the negative impact would be "undoubtedly much greater" than the benefits.

[source]

He [a spokesman] suggested that, while Germany had already agreed to take part in training Iraqi security forces - albeit outside the country - he was hopeful the same would be true of France.

[source]

Gerhard Schroeder pledged Berlin’s support but with conditions. “We are of course willing to participate in the training of Iraqi troops if the Iraqi government wants that,” he said.

“But this has to take place in training centres in Germany because we stick to our position that no German troops will be sent to Iraq.”

[source]

[brownjenkins]

i'm speaking more of the advances in communication between 1776 and now

i think we could have done this much sooner... it would have lead to temporary turmoil, maybe even worse than we've seen... but it may also have lead to a situation that is a lot less violent than it is today

but that's the past... we shall see... if terrorist attacks decrease, then i'd say we've made a step in the right direction

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by brownjenkins

i think we could have done this much sooner... it would have lead to temporary turmoil, maybe even worse than we've seen... but it may also have lead to a situation that is a lot less violent than it is today

Kicked out Hussein? Or given back sovereignty?

I don't think it would have been possible to give them back power any sooner. Most political analysts thought the June 30 deadline was really pushing it already. They just woudnt've been ready earlier.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Kicked out Hussein? Or given back sovereignty?

I don't think it would have been possible to give them back power any sooner. Most political analysts thought the June 30 deadline was really pushing it already. They just woudnt've been ready earlier.

sovereignty and maybe even elections

i ask you, why specifically would they not have been able to give iraq sovereignty a while ago?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
sovereignty and maybe even elections

i ask you, why specifically would they not have been able to give iraq sovereignty a while ago?

Who would you have given it to? There was a lot of preperation that had to be done. They wrangled over the constitution - remember that. There were certain things that had to be in place first. I'm not saying that it couldn't have been done sooner - but i would rather it be planned out - than have something just thrown together because some people say it could have been done sooner.

Why do you think they waited?

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Why do you think they waited?

i think the current administration wants to ensure a permanent US military presence in iraq (though they would prefer it under the name of NATO)... much like what we still have in germany... not 100,000 troops, but not just 100 in an embassy either

if we had allowed elections and complete sovereignty a year ago... which we could have if it was a priority, the elected government may very well have asked us to leave completely

i hope i'm wrong... but, as i said, time will tell