If moving up the date for the so-called “handoff” in Iraq helps save lives that would have otherwise been targeted on June 30, then yesterday’s surprise and secret event is certainly good news. But therein lies a bigger problem: the fact that deteriorating security made the change necessary.
As a substantive matter, the same concerns that existed over the weekend exist today. It’s not even close to a full transfer of sovereignty, violence is still tearing the country apart, U.S. troops won’t be leaving anytime soon, there’s no evidence that the Iraqis are prepared to handle security risks throughout the country, NATO’s commitment remains ambiguous at best, the country’s economy is struggling, its infrastructure is ravaged, and it’s unclear the extent to which Iraqis will consider their new government legitimate. Other than that, everything’s great.
The New Republic’s Spencer Ackerman had a terrific item yesterday noting that the formal, legal occupation ended with an “unexpected, premature whimper, in order to deny insurgents a bang.”
The U.S. was justified in seeking to prevent bloodshed on a much-heralded day. But the fact that we had to resort to such an off-guard measure–the Post reports that even Bremer’s senior staff didn’t expect today’s premature handover–shows the basic failure of the occupation.
There is no security in Iraq today, meaning the country lacks an elementary precondition for any successful political or economic reconstruction. For months, Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon misconstrued (at least publicly) the nature of the enemy, defining it strictly as Saddam holdouts and foreign terrorists when the very fact of the occupation has also brought Iraqis motivated by nationalist and religious sentiments into the ranks of the insurgents. Beyond the insurgency, there are thousands of armed Iraqis in the ranks of private militias, many of which are attached to political parties, and these militias pose a massive challenge to a stable Iraq bound by the rule of law.
Many war supporters were describing yesterday’s surprising announcement as a positive development. If freedom for Iraq was going to be good on June 30, it’s even better on June 28, right?
But the circumstances were discouraging enough to make the announcement more embarrassing than celebratory. Bremer threw that “sovereignty” letter to Iyad Allawi like a hot potato he no longer wanted to touch — and then quickly got the hell out of there. He could have given it to him two days later, but no one could ensure that they’d survive the event. These are the circumstances that should prompt champagne toasts?
Some of the Republican quotes I saw made it sound like this is the beginning of the end for U.S. presence in Iraq.
“Iraq’s long journey to freedom is not yet free from danger, but no one can dispute that today, a corner has been turned,” said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. “For a generation, the proud and resilient people of that great nation were brutalized by a dictator. Today they are free.”
Um, no they’re not. The occupation continues. The insurgency hasn’t stopped, nor have the efforts of our troops to stop it.
We still broke Iraq; we still own Iraq.
As for the politics of this, reality crushed any hopes of a public relations coup. A handful of people gathered under some fluorescent lights for five minutes, surrounded by intense security protection. A handful of reporters were on hand, but their cell phones were confiscated, presumably for safety reasons. Not exactly the kind of moment that will be captured on canvass for posterity.
On this “happy” day, everyone involved in the event was afraid they’d be killed. Hong Kong in 1997 this was not.
Despite administration spin, very little has changed. The war isn’t over. The only American on his way home is Bremer. The security crisis is getting worse, which yesterday’s announcement proved. Indeed, talk of “marshal law” continues.
War supporters should ask themselves one simple question before describing yesterday’s transfer as a glowing success: After Bush declared the “mission accomplished” over a year ago, would you have been disappointed to see the handoff occur secretly in a hastily thrown-together photo-op because officials couldn’t guarantee their own safety in a public event?