We have given back control of Iraq to the new interim Government. In a secret ceremony today sovereignty was handed back by Ambassador Bremer. The ceremony was two days early and was done in secret, apparently to deny the insurgent/terrorists an obvius day in which to conduct attacks to try and embarass the Bush Administration.
Officials said the surprise move was designed to outflank insurgents who had threatened terrorist attacks to disrupt the handover, and to avoid the complex security arrangements that a public ceremony would have warranted. But it also showed an Iraq too dangerous for top US and Iraqi officials to publicly mark the most significant date since the fall of Baghdad.--emphasis added
I have to say that last part sounds true and looks really bad. I've been starting to move more and more towards the viewpoint of Daniel Drezner on Iraq. That more troops were needed to make the notion of democracy in Iraq viable. I suppose it can still work, but I see it as a far less likely outcome.
Update: Roger Simon has a good post on this. I agree that the early handover was a good idea from the stand point of taking away an obvious day for killing people and destruction. Also, I agree with him that calling the people doing the killings insurgents is misleading. They are terrorists and fascists.
Posted by Steve at June 28, 2004 08:33 AMI've been saying for years that the problem was incompetence at the White House and the advisors that the President has chosen.
This just reinforces my position. Randall Parker has new developments which further makes the case.
Posted by: TangoMan on June 28, 2004 11:21 AMThey may be both terrorists and fascists (depending I suppose on what you think fascists are), but they certainly are insurgents by definition. I don't see that as misleading.
Posted by: Karl Hallowell on June 29, 2004 07:10 AMI guess I can see a problem if the term "insurgent" isn't sufficiently descriptive or is used as a euphenism.
Posted by: Karl Hallowell on June 29, 2004 07:22 AMKarl,
Right, my problem is the second one. Simply calling them insurgents leaves out quite a bit of info.
Posted by: Steve on June 29, 2004 07:38 AMIslamofacist, or Baathist/Saddam loyalist dead-ender, insurgents, then?
This PC demand on the exact language to use is absurd, and moreover, the US and Iraqi authorities on our side both call them insurgents, which is true enough. If the term is good enough for Bremer and our own military fighting them, it suggests the insistence on some other term is PC nonsense.
Posted by: sofla on June 29, 2004 04:41 PMSofla,
Let me guess: your single arent' you? You have to be given how often you recast others statements in your own skewed terms.
There was no demand, simply noting that the simple term insurgent is misleading in that it doesn't convey as much information.
Posted by: Steve on June 29, 2004 07:58 PMThe best bitches on the web
Posted by: weak sister bitch on November 12, 2004 11:22 AM