While most of America slept Monday morning, Iraq's wobbly stagger toward the desert mirage of full sovereignty took on the appearance of a slightly prouder shuffle. At 2:26 a.m. eastern time, former Iraqi administrator Paul Bremer gave the official transfer documents to interim Iraqi prime minister Ayad Allawi, finalizing America's promise of full sovereignty before June 30. For the first time since Iraqis toppled statues of Saddam Hussein, Iraqis are in charge of Iraq's welfare.
So on the day that officially ended American occupation of Iraq, why wasn't there a massive, pro-sovereignty celebration? We saw the fervor with which Iraqis celebrated their independence from Saddam. Now that they officially have it back, though the tone remains disconcertingly somber.
Until Monday, very little was known about the official transfer ceremony between Americans and Iraqis. The ceremony was merely a formality, more symbolic than meaningful, and ultimately only asks more questions. Chief among them, what does this actually mean for Iraqis, Americans and everyone else in between?
Unilaterally, Iraqi sovereignty is the goal that the entire world is working for. Some Americans see this as a new chapter in democracy, and some Americans glorify this as one step closer toward the removal of our troops. Some Iraqis undoubtedly look at Monday's transfer with great hope, and some Iraqis will continue to open fire at anyone wearing a patch of the American flag. We're all encouraged by the prospect of giving Iraqis a better way of life, but in that process, the only certainty is uncertainty at the best method of doing so.
Naming Allawi as prime minister or watching Sheikh Ghazi al-Yawar be sworn in as Iraqi president by the new Iraqi chief justice makes for a fine photograph, but there is little evidence to suggest it will give order and peace to a war-torn area. Schism among Iraqi ethnic groups is not bridged by this transfer, and the threat of violent overthrow is by no means decreased. This process toward harmonious democracy is still in its infancy.
June 28, 2004 could very well have the same significance for Iraqis as that which we identify with July 4, 1776. It should never be forgotten, though, that Congress did not declare the war for independence finished until 1783, and another war was waged for the same cause in 1812. To be sure, these are not comparable wars. The common thread, however, is that what we know to be "historical" in 2004 was fairly flimsy in 1776. Hindsight is recognition's best ally.
Iraqi independence is not synonymous with armistice. Americans and Iraqis are, and will be, embedded in a bitter conflict for some time, regardless of who is sworn in as the American president in January. Regardless of our opinion on how necessary this war is, we're key players in a conflict that is not settled with documents and signatures.
No matter which fight is fought by whom in Iraq, all parties are in for the long haul. This transfer of power may certainly provide a landmark date in Iraqi history, but in our time, as of June 29, 2004, its significance is unknown.
