U.S. Aims to End Iraq Occupation by June [Archive]

View Full Version : U.S. Aims to End Iraq Occupation by June

Seraphim

11-15-2003, 09:27 AM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031115/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_occupation&cid=540&ncid=716

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.S.-led occupation will end by June after selection of transitional government, the Iraqi Governing Council said Saturday.

The announcement was made following talks between the council and the chief administrator, L. Paul Bremer, who returned Thursday from Washington after talks with President Bush (news - web sites) and senior national security advisers.

Council member Ahmad Chalabi, appearing at a news conference with other members, said the selection of a transitional government should be completed by May, "internationally recognized" and with "full sovereignty."

Council President Jalal Talabani, speaking in Arabic, said the transitional administration would be selected after consultations with "all parties" in Iraqi society.

Council members also said plans called for a permanent constitution to be drafted and an elected administration chosen by the end of 2005.

Sunni Muslim council member Adnan Pachachi said the current U.S.-appointed Governing Council will send a letter to the president of the U.N. Security Council to inform him of the timetable for the setting up of the new institutions. The United Nations (news - web sites) had set a deadline of Dec. 15 for the timetable.

"The reason behind the setting up of this transitional government is to restore sovereignty, to end the occupation and to give a chance to a representative of the Iraqi people to represent Iraq (news - web sites)," Pachachi said.

Talabani said the new leadership would fully respect human rights and freedom of religion. It would also ensure separation of powers between executive, legislative and judicial branches, maintain civilian control of the armed forces and respect the country's Islamic identity.

The end of the U.S. occupation would not necessarily mean the departure of all American troops. However, Talabani said they would have a new status.

"The new government will be in charge of negotiating with the occupying forces over how to regulate their presence in the country," Talabani said.

Trident-za

11-15-2003, 10:00 AM

By June? Wow.... I seriously doubt that Iraq will be ready for "independance" by then, not if the recent escalation in guerilla type activity is any indication.

Maverick77

11-15-2003, 12:11 PM

way too early

ibstolidude

11-15-2003, 12:14 PM

the US will probably pull the old switch-erooo.

in 96' when Clinton said all the US forces w/IFOR would be home for Christmas/New Years...he just simply renamed the US name for the operation and the soldiers fell under SFOR....so technically no US IFOR soldiers where in Bosnia for the new year.

I imagine the US will end it's occupation and retain a SASO force of some kind...

only an uneducated guess...but one can hope.

Eviscerator

11-15-2003, 12:20 PM

Looks like the terrorists have won, the American public really are an enemy unto themselves, I dont know how they expect to win any sort of military conflict and resolve situations if any kind of losses are not acceptable. This sends a horrific message to terrorists worldwide, push America enough and they'll back down.

He219

11-15-2003, 12:48 PM

Valid point. Bad press influencing foreign policy.

But the US will maintain a strong presence. The Iraqis are the ones who will have to bear the burden of insurgent activity, Saddam's aspirations, and theocratic ambition. Will the US be responsible for supervising and financing reconstruction; will the Iraqi Authority be able to finance their own government?

These are the reasons the US will remain as the key influence, as we did in Germany and Japan after WWII.

US policy has always sought the secure transition of authority back to an equally represented Iraqi populus.

Trident-za

11-15-2003, 12:55 PM

Valid point. Bad press influencing foreign policy.

But the US will maintain a strong presence.

Good.... no matter what your views on the legitimacy of the war, I don't think the US can pull out anytime in the next few years without it being a huge humanitarian disaster. They started it, they have to finish it....

Trident-za

11-15-2003, 01:11 PM

I just stumbled across an interesting article on the SoldiersForTheTruth website. Dunno how true it is, and I haven't seen the report it discusses, but in light of this thread's topic it should give you something to think about...

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=DefenseWatch.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=247&rnd=991.8591178736254

He219

11-15-2003, 01:15 PM

They started it, they have to finish it....

'Care to elaborate?

Jack Mehoff

11-15-2003, 01:17 PM

SoldiersForTheTruth?? Those guys state no name, no rank, no service, no credentials. How do we know they are real soldiers?

You want truth? Try here www.military.com and click on Discussion

Trident-za

11-15-2003, 01:17 PM

He219, I just mean that it would be catastrophoc for Iraq if the US were to pull out before Iraq is a stable country. Having started the war for a variety of reasons, including humanitarian, it would defeat the purpose of the entire excercise if they were to leave before the job is finished. Thats all, nothing sinister.

Trident-za

11-15-2003, 01:20 PM

SoldiersForTheTruth?? Those guys state no name, no rank, no service, no credentials. How do we know they are real soldiers?

You want truth? Try here www.military.com and click on Discussion

I read that site quite regularly too Jack :) If you take into account the fact that a lot of the articles on SFFT are "anti party line" (so to speak), can you blame them for not posting names/ranks etc? The US military (or people on this website for that matter) don't appear to take kindly to differences of opinion. Try reading the article, and then deciding based on what they say, rather than judging everything by the name of the author. And, the article linked to above has a name, and the author makes no claim to be a soldier - I suspect he is an editorial staff member.....

Jack Mehoff

11-15-2003, 01:26 PM

The first rule of thumb for a research is looking for the author's credentials(year of service, branches, unit, etc.). You don't even know if the author is Ahmed from Saudi Arabia or John Smith from America.

Also, i have no problem with them stating their own opinions. But soldier for truth, wtf?! They should get rid of the word soldier if they are not willing to show their credentials.

Trident-za

11-15-2003, 01:35 PM

That might be your first rule of thumb, its not mine. I prefer to read the article or book, and base my own decision on the content. Knowing that the person was called John Smith and he lives in America wouldn't help me any - I still don't know if he is a moron or not until I've seen what he has to say. Besides, even a broken clock is right two times a day.

I'm pretty damn sure the kind of people you are inclined to believe because of name/rank/position etc. have cocked up the facts more than once in the past :) Different strokes, I guess....

P.S. I recently read a book on the PJs in Afghanistan... there was an interesting section on Operation Anaconda which is pertinent. The "official" line from the US military spokesman was..... we successfully located the enemy on day 1, so the operation is going well. The reality was: the US forces landed slap bang in the middle of the killzone of an Al'Qaeda ambush, and had to be extracted as soon as humanly possible (took several hours because the firefight was too intense).

P.P.S. I respect your opinion Jack and am not looking for a slang-war here... read the article and then, in the words of Monty Python, use it/don't use it. :)

Haiw

11-15-2003, 01:59 PM

Trident-za

11-15-2003, 02:02 PM

just think of this; remember when a few months back a few soldiers critisized the us policy? i believe they got a dishonourable discharge or even a court martial...so maybe thats why they aint eager to cite their name rank etc?

Correct.... it should also be remembered that even if soldiers have a problem with the status quo and speak out about it, that doesn't mean they don't plan a lifelong career in the military. Putting their name and rank on the article would pretty much screw them.... Criticism DOES NOT equal disloyalty.

In addition, all these articles are emailed to Col. Hack or his staff, and it is THEM who remove the names if requested. I doubt that some dude from Sauid Arabia could email something with a military email address....

Jack Mehoff

11-15-2003, 02:07 PM

just think of this; remember when a few months back a few soldiers critisized the us policy? i believe they got a dishonourable discharge or even a court martial...so maybe thats why they aint eager to cite their name rank etc?

That guy must have done something along with his mouth like AWOL, discipline problems, etc. I know quite a few soldiers who don't Bush at all and nothing happen to them.

I believe you are talking about a US Marine reservist from California REFUSED his order to go to Iraq and the military court martial him.

Trident-za

11-15-2003, 02:09 PM

Oops.... dunno how to delete a post. I'm a moron, pay no attention

Jack Mehoff

11-15-2003, 02:11 PM

I need a source

Trident-za

11-15-2003, 02:15 PM

A source of what? Are you referring to the book I mentioned... if so, its called "None Braver", written by Michael Hirsh.... good book! I have nothing but respect for the US SF units, including the PJs. If you haven't read it, Jack, you should. Doesn't make the military planners look too bright, but shows the american soldiers bravery/skill etc up very nicely.

Jack Mehoff

11-15-2003, 02:24 PM

In addition, all these articles are emailed to Col. Hack or his staff, and it is THEM who remove the names if requested. I doubt that some dude from Sauid Arabia could email something with a military email address....

Are you talking about this military account?

http://www.nastyburger.com/ako.jpg

96B

11-15-2003, 03:03 PM

The Iraqi Governing Council will retain control over their nation toward the end of June next year, with a constitution and elected government around the end of '05. We are simply giving their nations political power back to the people but retaining a substantial military force in the region for an undetermined time thereafter.

ßå$tÄ®Ð¢HÏ¿ð

11-15-2003, 05:21 PM

Well I clearly remeber hearing when the war started America would be there as "Long as it takes". Now the ****s hit the fan there and people are dieing ,everyone wants out? Wow thats retarded...if American soldiers leave before the jobs actually finished and the place is safe and secure so the New Iraq government can take over with there new army...they will be seen as "full-of-****" and officially cause'd Iraq more harm then good. Not to mention turning Iraq into a terrorist **** hole.. If Americans leave Iraq by June, Iraq will be in much worse shape then before. Plus not to mention everyone in the Middle East will in fact hate America if they didnt hate them before.

Seiyuuki

11-15-2003, 05:49 PM

budanski

11-15-2003, 07:03 PM

"We will bring peace and stability to Iraq, then we will leave." -GWB

Fascinating.

Clinton promised one year in Bosnia and we're still there. He went into Kosovo without authorization and we're still there.