Turning sovereignty over to them... or, somewhat, anyway. Of course, we have to keep control of their budding military force. And the police. Ooh, the border guards. And, really, any other security organizations that anyone has set up so far. And the governing council can't pass any laws that last past January.
But other than that, they can have sovereignty, sure.
Not that I have a better answer than the one we're using, mind you. I've literally been saying for months that there are no good answers in/for Iraq. (I didn't tell that to the Engineers I helped train before they went over there, tho. Just to the guys in my unit who bother asking. And sometimes to passerbys.)
As far as the voting goes, it would be *great* if we could do that equitably. It would pretty much give us the direction we'd have to go... I think that the vote would actually be for us to stay, unless the number of insurgents truly is greater than the number of other Iraqis. I believe the average Iraqi wants to live a life without fear of being blown up on the way to the corner sooq, y'know? And if we left now, there'd be that nasty power vacuum... But we can't call a vote. The reasons are numerous; a distinct lack of citizen records and identification cards (or even the definitions for citizenship) would be the first hurdle.
As for staying there, it's a tough prospect. I do care either way; I care both ways, actually. Removing a man like Uncle Saddam Link (I've still gotta see that) was a very worthwhile goal, but so is establishing freedom and justice in a country that currently does not enjoy those human rights. I pray, knock on wood and keep my fingers crossed that someone echelons above pseudosoldier can make the right decision.

     I agree largely with Draginol on this. At some point the Iraqi people have to take control of their own destiny. There have been many articles, op-ed pieces, ect...  that have talked about the "silent majority" of Iraqis who want democracy. Well, frankly if they want it they have never had a better chance than now and are unlikely to have one again. There would be tremendous issues with holding a referendum and pseudo has outlined them well. These things are fixable with an exertion of the majority. If this country does not fix these things and instead holds a skewed election that gives them results we don't agree with... well that is their problem at that point. We have done more than enough for the Iraqi people. Let them take the reins and go somewhere. The standards are simple, govern yourselves and prevent your own internal unsavories from threatining other nations. Throughout history when countries have failed to live up to these standards they have been opposed by force eventually. I just hope we don't have to repeat this exercise in international baby-sitting again int he near future.

Hmm...I find it interesting that the only 2 people to respond thus far are military personnel...the very people this country is asking to put their lives on the line and go off to Iraq to support the cause of a free-er Iraq.

I'm of the same opinion as Brad and Greywar.  If, as has been reported, the majority of the Iraqi people want a democratic government to run their country, well, now's their chance to set the ball rolling.  The US accomplished what we set out to do: remove Saddam. And whilst I understand that we couldn't just leave a power vacum there I do think that if they don't want the US there...well, then we should respect their wishes and get the heck out.  If they ask us to stay and help rebuild, fine.  But if they decide that they can do it alone, we need to leave them to their own devices.

 

I agree 100% with you Brad.

The US now has a responsibilty to ensure a smooth transistion, but if the Iraqi people dont want that, they should leave yes.

If only there could have been a similar referendum to decide if forces should have entered Iraq in the first place...

BAM!!!

I don't think Saddam would have permitted that. That was kind of the point, Muggaz.

hehe... if only Brad!!! if only

BAM!!!

The referendum would be akin to North Korea's Presidential "elections" Kim Il-Sung 100% opposing party (there are none allowed) 0%. How can the US criticize a leader with such an approval rating?

Either way, I hope certain current administration will not force USA solders on Iraq country. After all, they should decide, not us or our government.

For the record, it's unlikely that Greywar or I will be heading into harm's way any time soon. I think we're safe for about a year... but as Dharma knows nothing is certain in the military (good luck getting a solid answer on your PCS status soon).
The Iraqis who have the say on whether we should stay or not are, right now, the same people we've put into power: the Governing Council (minus, what, two or three original members now?). I'm fairly certain they want us to stay... I think that several of the other insurgent groups want us around, too, at least until they are certain they'll be able to fill the vacuum.
If we truly have a responsibility to ensure something here... a smooth transition to self-government, or the broader goal of liberty for the Iraqi people... we really can't give up that responsibility even if asked. Sure, I agree that realistically we would have to back off, as we would compromise other morals, but we'd still be culpable if the whole country goes into the shitcan.
The most I hope for is a tenuous peace under the goofy-ass triumverate we were talking about instating, with some strong military leaders in the security forces who are actually idealistic about what they can accomplish for the good of the Iraqi people. Keep in mind that *I* am the reason that we learned the word for "pessimism" in our last refresher course, tho.

While I agree with the concept, I think the Iraqi people should be given a few more options to vote on. My problem with a simple yes/no question is that it polarises issues and doesn't offer solutions.

For example, I would love to see the following questions asked.

- Would you support US troops remaining under US control?
- Would you support US troops remaining under Iraqi control?
- Would you support an international peace keeping force (possibly including US troops) under UN control?
- If US troops would only remain in Iraq under US control, would you accept for them to remain for a 1 year stabilization period as Iraqi troops are trained and take over control?
- What period of time is acceptable for foreign troops to be required to help maintain security for? 0, 1, 2, 3, 5 or 10 years?

With such a broader set of answers administrators would both know exactly what the population wanted and have the authority to use potential solutions. Many Iraqis may want US troops out, but would be content for them to remain for another year, especially if under Iraqi control or clearly answerable to the decisions of the Iraqi government.

Paul.

The aftermath in Iraq will depend a great deal on how Europe handles their return to business. The modern Middle East is the product of Eurpoean intervention, and I doubt that they have changed their practices. They lost billions when Saddam Hussein was removed; they were dealing with a genocidal maniac right up until the US invaded. That said, they are going to be straining to get a new foothold, and they will be willing to pay a good deal for it, with the same disregard for who they are dealing with.

I think the US should leave, but I don't have any illusions that the Iraq we leave will survive more than year or two. It is a prime peice of real estate for people of Saddam Hussein's bent, for radical Muslims, and for Europe, Russia, and Asia who are set to make a future Iraq theirs for the exploitation. The US may take a "hands-off" stance, but I don't believe what becomes of Iraq will have anything much to do with the average Iraqi voter, if they ever really vote at all.

Would you support US troops remaining under Iraqi control?

No country in the world allows foreign governments to issue direct orders to their troops. This sort of renders this question moot.

 

The problem with referendum with a plurality of question like this is that you absolutely guarantee that you will have none of the options attain a majority response. This leaves a gaping hole for every opposition group to rant on about how "the government had no mandate!". Once you exceed 2 options in any referendum it ceases to have much meaning.

Greywar: You think the US doesn't issue direct orders to its troops in Korea, Germany and Japan?

Obviously the US wouldn't be able to just go into something like Falucia (killed the spelling) without the okay of the civilian government but at least it woudl be there to help stabilize and defend the new government IF the Iraqi people wanted.

Of course the US issues direct orders to *their* troops in those place brad, I think you have misread my comment. My point was exactly that. Korea has *zero* control of US troops within it's borders. None at all. Not even judicially. Trust me I am *well* aware of foreign status of forces agreements:)

If America backs off from Iraq and leaves it alone with its "hands off" approach and another country flows in (insidiously with capital), will we Americans be able to finger point and shame that country for undermining what we tried to set up? heh

No, but it it ends up being bad for Iraq the US will certainly be the one taking the blame.