>I'm not buying this "US wasn't involved". It was involved in at least two ways: as an occupying power, and as the country where the judges were instructed.
>
>As an occupying power it is attempting to hand over responsibility to an elected government. Had the US refused to hand him over, the critics would holler that the "government" is a sham to rubber-stamp US decisions. The Iraqi government would lose credibility at home and abroad, with obvious effect.
>
>In handing him over, the US authorities made it very clear that appropriate forms should be followed. There seems to be very good evidence about this. Clearly the US was not in control or "involved" in any fashion apart from having its wishes ignored. It is easy in hindsight to observe that it was a mistake for the US to be "involved" but not in control, or to expect that generations of sectarian hatred could be resolved overnight. But IMHO it's a long leap from there to blaming the US for the whole debacle.


I don't blame the U.S. for the whole debacle. But I don't understand why you speak of the current Iraqi government's credibility as an open question. It is widely considered, even within the Bush administration, a sham and a rubber stamp of the U.S. We are never going to get out of there until Iraq has a true, independent government.

Actaully we aren't going to get out of there until Iraq is partitioned along ethnic / religious lines, with equitable distribution of oil revenue. They are NEVER going to be one big happy family. That was a pipe dream of the first order.