From: Gene McAloon 

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 01:07:18 -0500, "Mark Hessey"
 wrote:

>"Gene McAloon"  wrote: Bush
wants a functioning
>Iraqi government by June, presumably for his own election reasons. Absent
>that timetable, the US position is a viable one.
>
>I think that election purposes probably play an underlying role, but I think
>a larger part was pandering to the French (who called for a return to Iraqi
>power by last November) with yet another underlying purpose behind that of
>reuniting the UN to let them prove they're still relevant (almost
>impossible). I don't care for that tactic all that much, but given the
>relative lack of destruction of the infrastructure and fast resolution of
>major combat operations and remembering that the June 30th date does not
>mean that our occupation will end, it does seem a prudent timetable to turn
>over control while the process continues.
>

The idea that the Bush people are pandering to the French makes no sense. Why on
earth would they be inclined to do that?

As for the timetable, why other than domestic political considerations
would June be the target date?  That is when Bush will start campaigning in
earnest and naturally he wants Iraq behind him as an already successful
undertaking as judged by having at least an interim government in place. If
there is not that, then Iraq will seem the failure that it already seems
and is. After the bombing of the first war, the sanctions that prevented
maintenance of the infrastructure
and the further bombing of the second war, the infrastructure is in a very
bad state indeed and so far little has been done about it and that little
has been hampered by constant sabotage and attacks on those trying to
resurrect it.

The private American companies that have been given the job of
reconstruction are afraid to even send their people into Iraq because of
the lack of security. You claim reconstruction is going along just fine,
but even the Bush people don't make that claim.

It occurs to me that one of the reasons Bush wants out of Iraq and the UN
in is that the job of reconstruction is going so badly that he wants out of
the mess. In fact, I don't doubt that most of the subcontracts will be
given to non-American companies because American companies are just targets
for everybody, both Iraqis and others and until the reconstruction has
succeeded, Bush has failed. In effect, Bush invaded Iraq yet the fighting
still goes on and
the US casualty list grows every day and they can't even keep the lights on
24/7.  To put it another way, Bush destroyed Iraq with his war and is
incapable of putting it back together. That is the kind of failure that
impacts on his re-election chances greatly, not to mention his
international reputation already
in tatters.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5