so when my internet was down over the weekend i got most of my news from n.p.r. i listened to a bunch of stories about this new timetable the administration is floating for returning sovereignty to iraq. (the plan can be downloaded from the coalition provisional authority web site). as the plan was described on the radio, sovereignty will be restored to iraq in june 2004 and that will mark the end of the "occupation." the broadcast noted that u.s. troops will stay in the country after june 2004, but it will be "at the invitation" of the iraqi government.
when i heard this i wondered how the u.s. knows that the new iraqi government will invite u.s. troops to remain. i mean, bush keeps saying the u.s. is going to set up a democracy in iraq. what if the new iraq government responds to a public backlash against foreign forces and asks them to leave? if the country really is going to be an independent sovereign country (as opposed to some american puppet) it could decide to do something unexpected by the administration, or even something bush doesn't want.
this morning i read juan cole's explanation of the stages of the plan. cole notes that under the timetable bilateral agreements with the u.s. concerning troop presence in iraq will be negotiated by march 2004. i.e. before elections* are held in may 2004. this means that these agreements will be negotiated with the c.p.a., a group of iraqis who were handpicked by the bush administration (and can be dismissed by at will by paul bremer). that's how the administration can be sure that the new iraq government will invite troops to remain after june 2004–strictly speaking, the new government will not do the inviting. rather the new government of iraq will inherit an agreement which will require them to accept american forces on terms negotiated between the american government and american appointees.
under those circumstances, there will be little practical difference between the period that american forces are there as occupiers as opposed to invited guests after june 2004. its hard to imagine that iraqis who are resisting the occupation will see much of a difference. everything about this smells of an attempt to artificially declare the end of the occupation in the months before the presidential election when, in fact, all the trappings of an occupation will continue. kind of like how they artificially declared the end of the war even as the fighting rages on.
*as cole notes these so-called "elections" even when they finally occur will be anything but democratic. the eligible voters will be a handpicked committee rather than the population at large. thus, even after these elections, the new government of iraq will be indirectly appointed by the u.s., with the iraqi population having absolutely no say in who will be their new leader.
