The NYT is reporting that the Administration's plan to transfer power to the Iraqis by 30 June of this year is not politically motivated. Really?

This transfer, in which the U.S. will have military superiority over 'new Iraq' for an indeterminate amount of time is beginning to sound an awful lot like the lack of the Pentagon's wholesale discarding of scenarios for post-war Iraq. A planning fiasco.

Here's a bit:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 18 — In the Bush administration, it is considered heresy to suggest postponing the planned return of sovereignty to Iraq. Turning over control by June 30, administration officials say, is crucial to assuaging Iraqi distress over living under American occupation.

Yet in recent weeks, diplomats and even some in the administration have begun to worry that the date reflects more concern for American politics than Iraqi democracy. Their fear is that an untested government taking power on June 30 may not be strong enough to withstand the pressures bearing down on it.

"When we went into Iraq, our plan was to have a government, build a structure and write a constitution that would be a source of longterm stability," said an administration official. "Now that's out the window."

Many in the administration say that while they have no proof that the urgency to install a government is politically motivated, it feels to them like part of a White House plan to permit President Bush to run for re-election while taking credit for establishing self-rule in Iraq.

"I can make all kinds of arguments about why we need to establish democracy in Iraq on an urgent basis," said another administration official. "But when you hear from on high that this is what we must do, and there can be no questioning of it, it sounds like politics."

This week, the administration is in the odd position of insisting on Iraqi self-rule by June 30, while awaiting a recommendation from the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, on how the interim government should be chosen and the form it should take.

Mr. Annan's special envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi leaders, including Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, to work out some sort of consensus on the shape of an interim government.

The United States wants that government to rule while elections are held later in the year or in 2005 for a constitution-writing legislature. Eventually, elections are to be held to ratify the constitution and establish a permanent Iraqi government.

Administration officials say that Mr. Brahimi was told that one option he must not accept is postponement of the June 30 date for the transfer of power.

"It is holy writ," said an administration official.

Yet many experts, including some in the administration, also say they are worried that such a rapid transition entails enormous risks. What happens, some worry, if a major crisis were to occur, resulting from an assassination or bomb explosion in which many Iraqis die?

What happens, moreover, if by accident American forces — which are still likely to retain wide autonomy and authority over security throughout the country — kill a large number of Iraqi citizens? Would a shaky Iraqi government lacking in perceived legitimacy survive a blow like that?

It makes no sense, many experts say, to set a fixed date to hand over sovereignty before having any idea of what sort of government will be given power on that date.

"This is entirely a schedule dictated by Karl Rove," said an Arab diplomat who maintains close contacts with the administration, referring to the White House's political director. "Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive."

More at link above.

War is the ultimate political expression. There is enough material in this portion of the article from which to mine quotes from for a whole week of blogging.

I'll choose what I see as a non-controversial statement:

"When we went into Iraq, our plan was to have a government, build a structure and write a constitution that would be a source of longterm stability," said an administration official. "Now that's out the window."

You have to wonder just how much of this is true. It seems likely that the 'war game' was on and the dates decided before we could build any sort of real coalition. So we end up with a mess in Iraq that's ours, and ours alone to clean up.

Things to consider:

1) Why did the civilian's at the Pentagon 'circular file' scenarios from the intelligence agencies and the State Dept. regarding troop numbers to thwart chaos in post-war Iraq?

2) Why have our efforts to 'build a structure' proven so fruitless?

3) Why are 'we' writing a constitution for Iraq? This, along with the continued presence of occupying forces is a textbook definition of empire.

These are questions drawn from two sentences by a White House official. Anyone that has been following this closely has a good idea what the likely answers are.

More later.