Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Who Lost Iraq? (NY Times)
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The formal occupation of Iraq came to an ignominious end yesterday with a furtive ceremony, held two days early to foil insurgent attacks, and a swift airborne exit for the chief administrator. In reality, the occupation will continue under another name, most likely until a hostile Iraqi populace demands that we leave. But it's already worth asking why things went so wrong.
The Iraq venture may have been doomed from the start — but we'll never know for sure because the Bush administration made such a mess of the occupation. Future historians will view it as a case study of how not to run a country.
more
A Secretive Transfer in Iraq(NY times)
Reader's opinion
Two days early, with a veil of secrecy and a tight security lockdown, Washington's proconsul in Iraq, Paul Bremer III, handed a hollow and uncertain sovereignty to Iyad Allawi, a former Baathist collaborator of Saddam Hussein who spent most of the past three decades exiled in London, the last one of those in the pay of America's Central Intelligence Agency. It goes without saying that this is not the sort of outcome the nation envisioned when we sent our forces to liberate Iraq last year.
Moving the transfer date was a sensible precaution against anticipated insurgent attacks. But it underscores how arbitrary the original date, June 30, was all along. Rather than being timed to coincide with a growing capacity of the new Iraqi authorities to take on the challenges of running the country and preparing it for democratic elections, the June date was fixed upon last November to ensure at least the appearance of progress as the American presidential campaign got under way. Dr. Allawi was chosen several weeks ago, in a process endorsed by the United Nations, as Iraq's interim prime minister. But nobody, including Bush administration officials, can seriously believe that Dr. Allawi and his cabinet are now in any position to run Iraq and prepare it for democratic elections.
more
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The formal occupation of Iraq came to an ignominious end yesterday with a furtive ceremony, held two days early to foil insurgent attacks, and a swift airborne exit for the chief administrator. In reality, the occupation will continue under another name, most likely until a hostile Iraqi populace demands that we leave. But it's already worth asking why things went so wrong.
The Iraq venture may have been doomed from the start — but we'll never know for sure because the Bush administration made such a mess of the occupation. Future historians will view it as a case study of how not to run a country.
more
A Secretive Transfer in Iraq(NY times)
Reader's opinion
Two days early, with a veil of secrecy and a tight security lockdown, Washington's proconsul in Iraq, Paul Bremer III, handed a hollow and uncertain sovereignty to Iyad Allawi, a former Baathist collaborator of Saddam Hussein who spent most of the past three decades exiled in London, the last one of those in the pay of America's Central Intelligence Agency. It goes without saying that this is not the sort of outcome the nation envisioned when we sent our forces to liberate Iraq last year.
Moving the transfer date was a sensible precaution against anticipated insurgent attacks. But it underscores how arbitrary the original date, June 30, was all along. Rather than being timed to coincide with a growing capacity of the new Iraqi authorities to take on the challenges of running the country and preparing it for democratic elections, the June date was fixed upon last November to ensure at least the appearance of progress as the American presidential campaign got under way. Dr. Allawi was chosen several weeks ago, in a process endorsed by the United Nations, as Iraq's interim prime minister. But nobody, including Bush administration officials, can seriously believe that Dr. Allawi and his cabinet are now in any position to run Iraq and prepare it for democratic elections.
more
Comments:
Post a Comment
