US admits it will still control Iraq after transfer

[durutti]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=514687

The US has made clear that the transfer of sovereignty to a provisional Iraqi government on 30 June will be a limited affair, and that ultimate authority will reside at a gigantic new US embassy in Baghdad and with the military occupation force.

In sometimes heated hearings on Capitol Hill this week, senior Bush administration officials admitted they did not know who would be in the new government, precisely what powers it would exercise, nor the exact shape of the new Security Council resolution that Washington is seeking at the United Nations.

Marc Grossman, Under-Secretary of State for political affairs, said the government would put "a very important Iraqi face" on many aspects of the country's life. But the US military, not the Iraqi security forces, would be in charge of all security matters.

Asked what would happen if the temporary government acted at variance with US foreign policy - such as by seeking closer ties with Iran - Mr Grossman implied that would not be tolerated. "That is why we want to have an American ambassador in Iraq," he noted cryptically.

[rumguy]

1. "a gigantic new US embassy"

sweet I can't wait for this new provisional government...it's gonna rawk!

[SOS]

26. Plus 14 permanent US military bases...

From yahoo news, also available at Chicago Tribune and the Nation:

"From the ashes of abandoned Iraqi army bases, U.S. military engineers are overseeing the building of an enhanced system of American bases designed to last for years.
U.S. engineers are focusing on constructing 14 "enduring bases," long-term encampments for the thousands of American troops expected to serve in Iraq for at least two years. The bases also would be key outposts for Bush administration policy advisers.

As the U.S. scales back its military presence in Saudi Arabia, Iraq provides an option for an administration eager to maintain a robust military presence in the Middle East.. The number of U.S. military personnel in Iraq, between 105,000 and 110,000, is expected to remain unchanged through 2006, according to military planners. "

[skooooo]

2. Errr....so what exactly is going to be transferred??

Inquiring minds want to know.

[htuttle]

3. They're going to be handing over a really huge key

And then that will be that...

:eyes:

[LittleApple81]

4. No only your inquiring mind, unfortunately for the American Soldiers.

Al-Sistani signed that "constitution" under the condition that he was going to wait and see what that transfer of power was going to be.

And, now we see: they just want an Iraqi face (just like the wizard of Oz).

[skooooo]

7. Ok! Problem solved....

They'll never catch on!!

/sarcasm

[TolstoyAndy]

8. Handing over ...

They'll hand over responsibility for what goes wrong,
but keep credit for whatever goes correctly.

My hunch: only oil output will go correctly.

[Endangered Specie]

12. I imagine a lot of Bullhsit

[indepat]

29. Their play-like sovereignty, their play-like liberty and freedom: that's

what's being transferred in the little play-like world the neocons have created.

[Tellurian]

5. Another unfulfilled dream of the puppet WH...

Do they really believe they have any leverage in this disaster?

[bluestateguy]

6. Here's a new SAT word analogy:

Poland in 1952 was to the Soviet Union as Iraq is to the United States in 2004.

[Tellurian]

9. haha!

very funny-

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. I'm partial to Poland 1940.

Two major powers (USSR/Germany-US/Britain) exerting influence on a recently conquered nation.

I suspect that the results will be the same: expulsion.

[0007]

10. I'm not indeed sure who's in control at this point

..but I do know junior has the tiger by the tail and can't let go and is the butt of all late night jokes the world over.

[Tellurian]

11. your analogy is askew

I believe JR has a monkey on his back..

and the UN is his only way out.

[Endangered Specie]

13. Duh, did you really think we'd let them go about it on their own...

America is famous for supressing democracy when it needs to... in other words, when, if there was one, the people would elect an anti-american government that wouldn't be willing to share its resources necessary to fuel are insatiable appetite for, everything. Just look at Haiti, Saudi Arabia etc...

[number6]

14. why am I not surprised ...

... gigantic new US embassy (Target) .....

[trapper914]

16. Why don't they just admit it...

June 30th was a pipedream. Get ready for a revolt in Iraq when they realize they were lied to. How many U.S. forces will die as a result of this election year ploy?

[4dsc]

17. Getting bush to admit to anything

would be considered a miracle at best..

Its all about this secret government set up by these neocons..

[ze_dscherman]

18. Transfer responsibilty to whoever is offering themselves as scapegoats

Look, WE are not responsible for that civil war - it was the provisional Iraqi government that failed, even though we helped them any way we could ...

[4dsc]

19. I want to know who would take such a job

and how much he gets paid..

[Lindacooks]

25. What?

We sure as hell are responsible for the imminent civil war - we invaded the country, ruined the infrastructure, and unleashed all of the forces now fighting there.

[peacetalksforall]

20. If you take it down to its most basic necessity...

the Iraqi people must DESIRE us to do what we keep promising....

sounds like they have given up and most want us out....

why not take all the money that will soon be lost in bombing what has just been built, all the funeral money, all the rehabilitation and compensation money, all the gas money we spend on those aircraft flying back and forth and give it to the people and let them fight it out for themselves.....

Let's do something for all victims....

Let's not victimize.

[Snellius]

21. This huge U.S. embassy is a huge mistake

Bush plans to rule Iraq from an enormous new embassy, the largest in the world -- now they use one of Saddam's old palaces. Why, if they plan to hand power over to the Iraqis, or at least give the impression of ceding power, why do they want to create such an obvious focal point of U.S. occupation? It's going to become an armed fortress.

[hippywife]

22. The word "still" implies

that they control it now, but I wouldn't be so sure of that if I were them.

[MidwestMomma]

27. That's exactly what I was thinking

What control? Looks like every day we lose more control.

Somebody better get a god dam plan together. I'm sick of our service people risking their lives while they sit in DC with their heads up their butts. And I'm sure the Iraqi people would like a better plan then shoot anything that moves.

With all the years of history, international policy, military strategy and a little common sense, someone has to have an idea that will work. Unfortunately, this admin entire foreign policy is based on "You're either with us or against us" and "Bring 'em on".

Thanks for listening....

[Neshanic]

23. It went from they will be free, to parts they will handle, to nothing

On the 30th what exactly happens? Is there a parade? That big key posted given to someone? Is a document signed and pens given out?

As far as the Embassy, the bigger the roof, the more room for the helicopters when the contractors flee to the Embassy grounds.

I wonder if they have selected the architect yet.

[Dark]

24. We all knew it was going to happen.

Bu$h can't actually handover control to a country bombing his troops, but he can't extend the deadline. So, he does this to save face.

[daleo]

28. The only thing being transferred is the last shred of U.S. credibility

And reputation for caring about democracy, in the eyes of the world. This will be transferred to the toilet.