The United Nations agrees with the United States that it isn’t possible to arrange quick direct elections for a transfer of power from U.S. occupation forces to Iraqis. Nonetheless, the U.S. handover of power is still
on schedule for June 30-July 1, according to Viceroy L. Paul Bremer. However, since only the U.S. and some of its darlings on the temporary Governing Council preferred indirect caucus-style voting, that process has been tossed. Now the question is what power transfer mechanism will be employed?
For the moment, the most respected Shi’a leader hasn’t rejected the delay of direct elections out of hand. Ayatollah Sistani, in an
interview published by the German news magazine
Der Spiegel on Friday, said he would only accept a short delay.
Sistani says he wants Iraq ruled under “sharia,” the Islamic legal code, and that if elections aren’t held quickly, he will call his followers into the streets.
Juan Cole notes:
Sistani wants the United Nations Security Council to issue a formal resolution regarding the new government and setting a firm timetable for general elections. ash-Sharq al-Awsat reports that IGC member Ahmad Shiya` al-Barak consulted with Sistani on Thursday and emerged to say that the grand ayatollah would accept a deadline for open elections of 3 months after July 1 (i.e. October 1). Al-Barak also said that there was no objection to devolving sovereignty for 3 months onto the Interim Governing Council (is he reporting Sistani's views here)? There is some indication that if Sistani feels the elections are postponed for too long, he is willing to call his millions of followers into the streets. It would be interesting for the US political process if those demonstrations are happening in September and October because Sistani felt the delay was becoming intolerable.
A prime display of just how chaotic the situation is can be found in the difference of opinion among senior U.S. officials over how long American troops are likely to remain in Iraq.
No Predictions for U.S. Role in Iraq
Duration Is 'Unknowable,' Myers Says
By Bradley Graham
The nation's top military officer declined yesterday to predict how long U.S. forces might remain in Iraq, saying events there would have to dictate when American troops could leave.
Pressed during a breakfast meeting with reporters on the likely duration of the U.S. presence in Iraq, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged that he and other military commanders have "notions or thoughts on that." But he declined to share them, noting with a chuckle that their previous predictions have proved wrong.
"I really do believe it's unknowable," Myers said about trying to forecast the end of the U.S. military mission. "If I gave a good professional estimate, then that would be a standard that people would point to, and, knowing that we can't know it perfectly, we'd get hammered."
Most Americans - even supporters of the war - wouldn’t label as optimistic the view that the
U.S. will keep troops in Iraq for years .
But that's exactly how many at the Defense Department see it. A long-term presence, they say, will be good for Iraq and good for the Middle East.
American officials say U.S. forces will be needed in Iraq long after a sovereign government is restored this summer, but they have yet to work out the terms of a continued presence.
Senior Pentagon officials said Thursday they were confident that the Iraqis, once given political control, would agree U.S. troops should stay. But some outside the government question whether that would hold true once an elected Iraqi government took over.
Anthony Cordesman, a close observer of the Iraq situation as a strategist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that if political control was turned over on July 1 to an Iraqi body that is not elected, it likely would align itself with U.S. objectives and therefore welcome a continued U.S. military presence. But once elections were held, the U.S. role would be in doubt, he said.
If the new Iraqi government decided it wanted American forces to leave, "We would certainly be obligated to leave, under international law," Cordesman said.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's chief spokesman, Larry Di Rita, told reporters at the Pentagon that there is a "fairly confident belief" that most Iraqis accept the U.S. view that American troops will be needed over the long haul to ensure a stable transition to democracy.
The basis for a continued U.S. military presence under the authority of a transitional Iraqi government is "being developed," Di Rita said without elaborating.
"I think there's a fairly comfortable understanding that the coalition has a lot to offer with respect to continued security in Iraq," Di Rita said, and "that people in Iraq understand that (and) want the coalition to continue to be involved in security in some way."
However long U.S. military units remain in Iraq,
two more soldiers are now on their way home to join the thousands
killed and wounded in the neocons’ most unexcellent imperialist adventure.