BAGHDAD, Iraq (June 28) -- The U.S.-led coalition transferred sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government two days early Monday in a surprise move that apparently caught insurgents off guard, averting a feared campaign of attacks to sabotage the highly symbolic step toward self-rule.

Legal documents transferring sovereignty were handed over by U.S. governor L. Paul Bremer to chief justice Midhat al-Mahmood in a small ceremony attended by about a half dozen Iraqi and coalition officials in the heavily guarded Green Zone. Bremer took charge in Iraq about a year ago.

''This is a historical day,'' Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said during the ceremony. ''We feel we are capable of controlling the security situation.''

Militants had conducted a campaign of car bombings, kidnappings and other violence that killed hundreds of Iraqis in recent weeks and was designed to disrupt the transfer, announced by the Bush administration late last year. Intially, the Americans were thought to have planned for about one more year of occupation.

Two hours after the ceremony Bremer left Iraq on a U.S. Air Force C-130, said Robert Tappan, an official of the former coalition occupation authority. Bremer was accompanied by coalition spokesman Dan Senor and close members of his staff. Bremer's destination was not given, but an aide said he was ''going home.''

The new interim government was sworn in six hours after the handover ceremony, which Western governments largely hailed as a necessary next step. The Arab world voiced cautious optimism, but maintained calls for the U.S. military to leave the country quickly.

Allawi delivered a sweeping speech sketching out some of his goals for the country, urging people not to be afraid of the ''outlaws'' fighting against ''Islam and Muslims,'' assuring them that ''God is with us.''

'I warn the forces of terror once again,'' he said ''We will not forget who stood with us and against us in this crisis.''

Members of Allawi's Cabinet each stepped forward to place their right hand on the Quran and pledged to accept their new duties with sincerity and impartiality. Behind them, a bank of Iraqi flags lined the podium.

''Before us is a challenge and a burden and we ask God almighty to give us the patience and guide us to take this country whose people deserves all goodness,'' said President Ghazi al-Yawer after taking his oath. ''May God protect Iraq and its citizens.''

The NATO alliance quickly said it would begin training the Iraqi military, which faces a daunting task in putting down the growing insurgency threatening the country.

President Bush marked the transfer with a whispered comment and a handshake with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, gathered with world leaders around a table at a NATO summit in Istanbul, Turkey.

Stealing a glance at his watch to make sure the transfer had occurred, Bush put his hand over his mouth to guard his remarks, leaned toward Blair and then reached out to shake hands. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, a row behind the president, beamed.

Bush was briefed Sunday that the Allawi government was ready to take power early. The transfer took place as Bush met with Blair, French President Jacques Chirac, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and other world leaders.

Allawi ''believed that it would improve his hand on facing the security threat, and the security threat is obviously increasing up to the day of June 30th. Is it going to prevent every act of terror? No, and I don't think anybody has tried to claim that,'' a senior administration official said.

The early transfer had been under discussion between Allawi and U.S. officials for at least a week, a senior administration official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Bremer's last moments in Iraq were spent in a meeting with Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top American commander in the country.

Although the interim government will have full sovereignty, it will operate under major restrictions - some of them imposed at the urging of the influential Shiite clergy which sought to limit the powers of an unelected administration.

For example, the interim government will only hold power seven months until, as directed by a United Nations Security Council resolution, there must be elections ''in no case later than'' Jan. 31. The Americans will still hold responsibility for security. And the interim government will not be able to amend the Transitional Administrative Law, or the interim constitution. That document outlines many civil liberties guarantees that would make problematic a declaration of emergency.

As Iraq's highest authority, Bremer had issued more than 100 orders and regulations, many of them Western-style laws governing everything from bankruptcy and traffic, to restrictions on child labor and copying movies.

Some are likely to be ignored. One law requires at least a month in jail for people caught driving without a license - something many Iraqis do not have. Another demands that drivers stay in a single lane, a rule widely ignored in Iraq's chaotic streets.

Others are more controversial. On Saturday, Bremer signed an edict that gave U.S. and other Western civilian contractors immunity from Iraqi law while performing their jobs in Iraq. The idea outrages many Iraqis who said the law allows foreigners to act with impunity even after the occupation.

A Bremer elections law restricts certain candidates from running for office, banning parties with links to militias, for instance.

The Coalition Provisional Authority's laws remain in effect after the occupation ends unless rescinded or revised by the interim government, a task that another Bremer-signed law allows, but only after a difficult process.

The new government's major tasks will be to prepare for elections, handle the day-to-day running of the country and work along with the U.S.-led multinational force, which is responsible for security. The Iraqis can in principle ask the foreign troops to leave - although it is unlikely this will happen.

However, the United States and its partners hoped that the transfer of sovereignty would serve as a psychological boost for Iraqis, who have been increasingly frustrated by and hostile to foreign military occupation. U.S. officials hope that Iraqis will believe that they are now in control of their country and that will take the steam out of the insurgency.

The handover ceremony took place in a formal room with Louis XIV furniture in an office in the building formerly used by the Iraqi Governing Council. Officials were seated in gilded chairs around a table, in the center of which was a bowl of flowers with a small Iraqi flag in it.

Just before the handover occurred, everyone stood up, and documents were passed to the chief justice at 10:26 a.m. local time - at that point, legal sovereignty was passed.

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the coalition deputy operations chief, was the only U.S. military official present.

Bremer sat on the couch with al-Yawer.

''We'd like to express our thanks to the coalition,'' al-Yawer said. ''There is no way to turn back now.''

Bremer, wearing a dark suit and a blue tie with small white dots, read the transfer document, which was inside a blue folder. With a laugh, he referred to himself as the ''ex-administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority.''

Allawi stood on his right and al-Yawer on his left.

''The Iraqi government is determined to hold elections at the scheduled date, which is January next year.'' Allawi said in Arabic. He had told CBS television network that the election might be delayed if the security situation did not approve.

There was little initial public reaction to the near-secret transfer ceremony, which was broadcast on Iraqi and Arabic satellite television stations. There was no celebratory gunfire - which rattles through Baghdad when Iraq's national soccer team defeats foreign clubs.

Workers were cleaning the area on Firdous Square where the statue of Saddam Hussein was hauled down on April 9, 2003 at the fall of the city. More police were seen in the streets.

Coalition officials said Bush had already sent a letter to al-Yawer formally requesting diplomatic relations.

''You have said, and we agreed, that you are ready for sovereignty,'' Bremer said in the ceremony. ''I will leave Iraq confident in its future.''

With the transfer, the Iraqis now face the daunting task of securing law and order with the help of about 135,000 U.S. troops and about 20,000 more from other coalition countries.


06/28/04 085 EDT

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
------------------------------------------------

I personally don't think the transfer matters. The interim government, or the body elected once elections are finally held, isn't going to face anything until troops are actually gone. As much as we're supposed to think that Iraq is sovereign now, we're still going to have an occupying force there, and could for a long time. I think the transfer is largely symbolic (read: bullshit) and doesn't matter until Iraq enforces Iraq's rules on their own, without any coalition or US involvement, and I think that there was no gain in doing it early (except that anyone planning to disrupt the transfer as it was on the 30th wouldn't be able to, like they said in the first paragraph).

Hey, here's a thought, I seem to recall extreme right wingers on this board saying a while ago that Islamics all wanted us dead, that Islam was a religion of violence, etcetera, and anyone defending Islamics were just anti-American terror lovers...

So how do we trust any government that we placed in Afghanistan or Iraq? You'll note that everyone sworn into office in Iraq placed their hand on the Quran. I don't think they did that because they couldn't find the bible anywhere. Just a thought.

It's a first step, which every journey requires.

At least now it will be clear that the "insurgents" are terrorists adamantly opposed to democracy in Iraq, which disposes of the cant that they were opposing the US.

Not totally, because the US is still there. If the attacks continue after everyone leaves and its left to Iraq, then sure. Then again, they'll always be US supported which would taint anything. This transfer means barely anything, and definitely not that.

The US is there precisely to defend against the would-be dictators. Clearly they are needed for some time.

Note that the US occupied post-war Japan and Germany for years until their democracies took root. Can anyone say with a straight face that they are US puppets?

Note, by the way, that most of the attacks aren't even against US soldiers, but against Iraqis.

Yes, the attacks are on Iraqi's much of the time, accompanied with demands that the US leave right away. The US presence makes a major contribution to the volume of attacks that there are (as in, there are more).

Of course it does! Given the motivations of the terrorist attackers (mostly foreign-based, in an attempt to destablize Iraqi democracy, leading to a theocratic dictatorship), it's natural that US defense forces are unwanted by those attackers. The mistake comes in thinking that the "insurgents" are some sort of grassroots domestic opposition. They are not.

It's exactly the same way the street corner thug would lobby to have the local cop leave the area.

Stripped to the essence, here's what's going on: all the people in the Middle East who are threatened by the chance of a successful democracy occurring -- Baathist remnants, al Qaeda killers, those who desire theocratic rule a la Iran -- are killing people and committing terrorist attacks to keep that from happening. The terrorism is naked extortion. All else is commentary.

So it has nothing to do with the fact that they hate us, as Bush was so fond of pointing out?

Define "they." Rank and file Iraqis -- no, they don't hate us, although they're happy to start taking the reins. Terrorists/theocrats/tyrants -- yes, those people hate us.

Yes, I meant the Islamic extremists. I don't think that this terrorism over there has as much to do with the fact that a democracy is going to be established in Iraq as much as the fact that:

-It's being established by the US
-The borders are hardly secure, meaning that it's easy for them to get in
-The terrorists, as many experts have said it, "...view Iraq as the frontline in a worldwide Jihad against the US."

A year ago I would say that the terrorists in Iraq were Baathist rebels...but now we have far more groups within Iraq, all intent on harming the view of the US...and they're there simply because the borders have not been secure in the least.

Sure, but that's no reason for the US to fold its hand. Democracy in Iraq was not going to happen without US intervention. Internal uprising was impossible, and the UN would never have helped. US established democracy in Japan and Germany and they turned out ok.

Agreed, and IMO a big mistake by the US in not sealing borders ASAP. However, that would only have kept personnel out. The weapons are already in Iraq -- ungodly numbers of arms depots exist.

Indeed. THEY know what's at stake. But isn't this a good thing? Would the US rather the front lines be in NYC, LA, Chicago? Isn't it better that the front line be elsewhere?

Some view the war in Iraq as "creating" more terrorists. I don't. I see it as bringing to conclusion the fight which has been simmering all this time, and which was inevitable after 9/11. Every generation of civilization has to fight against evil and barbarism in a different form. This is our fight, and pretending it can be wished or finessed away is pure denial, IMO. Establishing a successful Middle Eastern democracy is THE crossroads event, which explains the frenzy with which the enemies of democracy are resisting this.

I disagree - this gives them more of a reason for the fight to continue. I also disagree with the argument that its better to fight them there then here - - - NOT that I want to fight them here, mind you. However, if we weren't in Iraq, many of the terrorists wouldn't have a reason to go to us. Keep in mind, a large part of the reason why they hate us is because we won't just leave them alone (IE, the Isreal situation). And that aside, either way people are still dying. If terrorists are determined to attack within the US, they'll do it anyway. Iraq is just another place where they can hurt us.

Democracy in Iraq may happen...but I also worry that the current Fallujah situation is a microcosm of what Iraq could easily become. It's easy for democracy to happen in a country like the US or the countries in Europe. We're rich in many diverse resources and can sustain ourselves to a point. The middle east does not have that luxury. It gets all the more complicated when there are clashes of ethnic groups (Shi'ites, Sunnis, Kurds, etcetera) who have rarely seen eye to eye. Such divisions are easy to overcome in, say, the US...but over there the divisions are deep rooted and ancient.

(Note: the US was hardly alone in establishing a democracy in Germany)

Just a note---for fun and facts sake

The City-State of Sparta had the first known Democracy in the 7th Century BC and it came about on its own. Though slow political evolution will eventually lead to the best concept of governance. Which at this moment is Democracy. With or without intervention most of the worlds nations will slowly evolve toward a Democracy as thier respective populations rise. or until something better comes along.

I seriously doubt democracies form on their own when there is a dictatorship in place, unless the dictator steps down or is deposed. There was zero evidence that Saddam or his heirs would ever have voluntarily relinquished power on their own.

And in the meantime, thousands were tortured to death every year there.

The terrorists need a reason? What reason was there for 9/11?

The point is, there ARE terrorists in the Middle East, and there always will be as long as the Middle East remains what it is now: a wall to wall series of dictatorships, where illiterate people are brainwashed with state-controlled media. As long as those conditions prevail, the Middle East remains a terrorist-exporting cesspool.

Iraq brings the matter to a head.

But that only pushes the problem back one step. Why do they so pathologically hate Israel? It's all the same cause: the lurid state-issued propaganda.

Huh? Iraq is rich with oil.

Don't forget 1945 Japan when discussing US-created democracies: only a few generations removed from feudalism, zero history of freedom, civil rights and democracy, zero natural resources. Iraq today has it better than post-war Japan in many ways.

Sure Iraq has oil, but little else. You can't totally sustain yourself on oil. Where they have oil, other countries have farmland, mineral resources, etcetera. Iraq does not have these sorts of necessities in abundance. Successful democracies seem to only take lasting root in places where these things are abundant.

The hatred of Isreal goes beyond state-issued propaganda. This is a conflict that goes back hundreds of years (sort of like the one in Yugoslavia)...The problem is that, mostly from the Islamic point of view, this is a religious conflict. Furthering that problem is that Bush is supposidely a very religious man...

Jon Stewart, comedian that he is, said it best; something like "God told three different groups of people that they were the chosen ones, put their holy ground in the same place, and is sitting back to see who wants it more."

And, as I said, look at the rule that the Iraqi security forces are imposing in Fallujah for a warning sign of what could be; it's being described as a mini-Taliban state.

No, Japan has NOTHING, no raw materials of any sort. They trade in manufacturing only. Other Asian democracies have little in the way of natural wealth.

Oil will buy all that is needed, until a real manufacturing base can be established.

Those are only excuses in any event.

No, the problem is that from the Islamic POV, this is a genocide matter. All the various terrorist groups are NOT stating they have specific policy disagreements with Israel. Each one of them has, usually in its actual charter, explicit language that states its goal is to remove Israel from the map and exterminate all Israelis.

There is nothing Israel can do to appease them since you can't negotiate your own existence away.

And all this was in motion long before Bush was elected.

Except Israel has always been willing to coexist and to share and to make concessions for peace.

What does it say about radical Islam that they aren't content to share land but must exterminate their neighbors?

That would be a grave mistake. The primary battle is between the West and the mullahs, as sponsored by Iran. Now is not the time to make concessions to thuggish theocrats.