I'm a really terrible gambler. I have no luck at all when it comes to winning virtually any contest. And so, when I placed a bet with a few readers over at Tacitus (one many readers here may remember) that the Administration would need to move the goalposts of their plans to ensure all Iraqis have a say in their next government, not only was I hoping I was wrong, but I was actually trying to fool lady luck, who never smiles on me, into ensuring the US succeeded.
Having to shell out for the bar tab for one night seemed a small price to pay for the fulfillment of that promise. The bet will be decided in October (so there's time for me to be wrong...and I'll definitely pay up if I am, gentleman [you know who you are]), but it is looking less and less as if that success will be measured by the original goalpost set by the administration:
Senators Ask if Iraq Ready for Self-Rule
[Richard Lugar, the] chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee raised the prospect Sunday of extending the Bush administration's June 30 deadline for turning over power in Iraq, questioning whether the country would be ready for self-rule.
We'll hopefully learn more after Bremer reports to the Senate this next week.
Our bet is to be decided by a panel of judges, and it's a bit unfair of me to lobby via this pulpit, but I actually won't mind if I lose...in fact, I'm actually still hoping I do....
...I don't have any additional comment about the violence in Iraq today (except that hopefully it won't affect this longer-term goal and will be brought under control soon)
...but Senator Joe Biden, in an opinion piece in today's Washington Post, claims that
...The Bush administration's current plan is to have a new U.S. ambassador call all the shots, at the risk that Iraqis will think the occupation has not really ended on June 30. Indeed, we will be going from the CPA -- which at least has some international flavor -- to an exclusively American operation with a "Super-Embassy."
He goes on to recommend that
The president should convene a summit with our allies in Europe, including countries that opposed the war, and repair the transatlantic alliance. He should tell them that none of us can afford failure in Iraq, that he understands they need political cover to support us and that he will seek a U.N. Security Council resolution to create a high commissioner who would be in charge of managing Iraq's political transition. This arrangement has worked before -- in the Balkans and Afghanistan.
OK, so the bet seems a bit childish in light of all this...and, again, I'm still hoping lady luck doesn't let me down and finds a way to ensure I lose it, but it looks like moving the goalposts is quickly becoming a necessity.
Childish indeed, I liked the NATO segue though. I'm still waiting for the investigation of the UN Oil for Food Program, especially the part of Europeans lining their pocktets.
Posted by: Timmy | April 04, 2004 at 07:53 PM
Childish indeed
hmmm...what's it say that you accepted it?
I liked the NATO segue
UN seque, you mean?
Posted by: Edward | April 04, 2004 at 09:03 PM
I think he meant segue, Edward. Definitely not seque.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 05, 2004 at 11:05 AM
Are you sure Slarti?
Seque: A Programming Language for Manipulating Sequences
It is the manipulation of sequences we're betting on...
Posted by: Edward | April 05, 2004 at 11:10 AM
Ah. You were being funny.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 05, 2004 at 12:46 PM
not the first time...but if you can't laugh at yourself...
my real question is about the UN vs. NATO
I'm not sure if the "the transatlantic alliance" is limited to NATO, per se.
Posted by: Edward | April 05, 2004 at 01:06 PM
Ok, now with that out of the way, maybe we can discuss this:
And so, when I placed a bet with a few readers over at Tacitus (one many readers here may remember) that the Administration would need to move the goalposts of their plans to ensure all Iraqis have a say in their next government, not only was I hoping I was wrong, but I was actually trying to fool lady luck, who never smiles on me, into ensuring the US succeeded.
What, exactly, are you saying here? That (horrors) there may be a rescheduling of the transition to self-government? I'd say that's something we should count on; the probability of a schedule surviving its first milestone is highly related to the number and severity of the unknowns in executing that schedule. Still, you have to have a schedule or nothing gets done.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 05, 2004 at 01:17 PM
Actually, the bet arose on my wondering about whether Bush would be able to deliver before the election or would need to redefine our plans there to avoid having his first goalpost look like a failure. I never doubted he'd "turn over" the country on June 30 back then, just whether that would represent the fulfillment of our promise or would be something much less than that.
I bet on the premise that Bush had underestimated the difficulty and by setting the June 30th deadline (which perhaps was necessarily arbitrary, granted) he tried to give himself plenty of time to redefine his promise before election day (which is why I chose October 30 as the judgement day)...my main observation being that "buy-in" between the players was not something predictable and a flexible timetable would surely prove, as you note, "something we should count on."
I can still be wrong here. Bush can both move the date and still have in place a plan that "ensures" all Iraqi's have a voice in their new government...he just hasn't outlined what that plan might be though...and the current plan is doomed to fail on that particular promise.
Posted by: Edward | April 05, 2004 at 01:26 PM
I'm not sure if the "the transatlantic alliance" is limited to NATO, per se.
Ooh, no, not limited, but certainly almost everyone in the UK trusts NATO whereas the split on approval for the UN here is more on Party Political lines.
Posted by: James Casey | April 22, 2004 at 04:25 PM