Yes, those recent elections sure made a huge difference, didn't they? The biggest benefit, from the American perspective, is that they can now blame you for all the shit going down there.
But let's keep the upcoming Iraq sovereignty timeline in mind, shall we? Especially that last part:
Elections for a new Iraqi government will be held by December 31, 2005, at which point the Fundamental Law will expire and a new government will take power.
Do tell. A "new government", you say? And won't it be interesting to see what happens the next morning if that new government tells the Americans to pack up their mess kits and git outta Dodge. Then we'll see just what "sovereignty" really means, won't we?
BY THE WAY: Just in case you need any more evidence of the U.S.'s extremely malleable definition of "sovereignty," let's all recall that, technically, Iraq is supposed to be sovereign already:
WASHINGTON, Jan. 16, 2004 – The Coalition Provisional Authority administrator today said he thinks the handover of sovereignty to the Iraqi people ought to occur on schedule.
In Washington to discuss Iraq issues with President Bush, Ambassador L. Paul Bremer III told reporters at the White House that he and Bush discussed preparations for his Monday meeting with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, the president of the Iraqi Governing Council and other CPA officials in New York City about the future of Iraq. ...
"As for being in fundamental disagreement with him, I don't think that's true," Bremer asserted, noting that the Nov. 15, 2003, agreement that laid out the parameters for the June 30 handover of sovereignty benefits all of the Iraqi people.
That's right, all you Iraqis. Sovereignty is not inherently yours -- it has to be graciously bestowed on you by those fine folks who just finished bombing your country's infrastructure back into the Stone Age. That's some serious irony, isn't it?