The handover of Iraqi sovereignty by the allied forces to the interim Iraqi government is a new milestone for the Bush administration.
The US government is still in control in Iraq, but the transfer gives rise to a new opportunity for the US to change the tide there as well as holding important implications for US President George W. Bush's upcoming re-election campaign.
While the handover is certainly the right thing to do, the future of Iraq and its people remains uncertain at this point. The biggest accomplishment of the Bush administration in Iraq is in bringing down Saddam Hussein's regime and his subsequent arrest. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that after the handover, Saddam will be tried by the Iraqi people -- the real victims of Saddam's ruthless reign -- through the new interim Iraqi government.
It would be an intolerable insult to the Iraqi people if Saddam was to be tried by a foreign government such as the US. As for whether the Bush administration can one day take credit for installing lasting democratic rule in Iraq, it remains to be seen.
Many people continue to doubt the ability of the interim government to remain in power with the backdrop of continuing chaos in Iraq. In fact, on the first day after the handover on Monday, nine people, including three US soldiers and six Iraqis, lost their lives as a result of attacks by insurgents.
Moreover, it remains doubtful whether the troops of the interim government are capable of maintaining law and order and fighting insurgents against such a backdrop. Not only are they inadequately trained and equipped, the rate of dessertion in these troops is as high as 80 percent. Yet, if the interim government continues to rely almost entirely on US troops to keep order, the significance of the handover of sovereignty will be highly reduced -- not to mention that many will probably begin to wonder if the handover simply serves as a smoke screen for continued US occupation.
Under the circumstances, the fact that UN peacekeeping troops will be stepping in to help the situation is a step in the right direction. On the other hand, it is also undeniable that Bush has suffered grave injuries in terms of popular support, in particular voter support, over the past 14 months of US occupation. Most damaging to Bush is the fact that weapons of mass destruction have not been found in Iraq, which weakens the legitimacy and justification of the war and the occupation.
Gruesome retaliation by terrorist groups in Iraq, including the kidnapping and decapitation of foreign hostages -- as well as the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal -- have not only shocked the entire world but also generated serious skepticism about whether too great a price was paid to bring down Saddam's regime. Even US government reports have conceded that the goal of reducing the number of terrorist attacks has largely failed in post-Saddam Iraq.
Whether this was the intended impact of the war -- which will also probably determine Bush's place in the history -- remains to be seen. Under the circumstances, the handover of sovereignty on Monday has focused world attention (as well as US voters) on the future prospects for the reconstruction of Iraqi and away from all the negative events over the past few months.
The results of the power transfer may well reinforce the legitimacy of bringing down Saddam's regime. As for what kind of impact the handover will have on the US presidential election, only time will tell.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers