U.S., Britain Signal Apparent Differences on Iraq

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
By Alastair Macdonald
(Reuters)


BAGHDAD -- Britain said on Tuesday a planned interim Iraqi government will have final control over foreign troops, but Washington said its forces will be under U.S. command and do whatever necessary to protect themselves.

The apparent difference between the allies could complicate their efforts to secure U.N. Security Council endorsement for a June 30 handover in Iraq, particularly after France, Russia and China signaled they wanted changes to a draft resolution.

"The final political control (over foreign troops) remains with the Iraqi government. That's what the transfer of sovereignty means," British Prime Minister Tony Blair told reporters in London.

But Secretary of State Colin Powell told a Washington news conference: "Ultimately...U.S. forces remain under U.S. command and will do what is necessary to protect themselves."

An official in President's administration said the issue would be discussed with the interim government and added: "I think it can be worked out."

Adnan Pachachi, a senior member of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, weighed in on Blair's side in a BBC TV interview: "It is our understanding that any operations will have to have the approval of the Iraq government."

NUCLEAR SCIENTIST SET LEAD IRAQ

U.S. sources said Hussain Shahristani, a Shi'ite nuclear scientist imprisoned under Saddam Hussein's rule in the notorious Abu Ghraib jail near Baghdad, was expected to be named prime minister in the interim government.

U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, called in to help by Washington, is due to name a government shortly representing Iraq's potentially volatile mix of religious and ethnic communities.

In Iraq, people reacted with skepticism to Bush's promises on Monday of a peaceful and independent future, saying a U.S. offer of sovereignty did not go far enough to restore their freedom.

"Bush is a scorpion. He is a liar. He is sneaky, making all kinds of promises when he just wants to control Iraq," said Ayman Haidar, a policeman manning a Baghdad traffic checkpoint.

On the military front, U.S. officials said the Pentagon would replace Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez as the top U.S. commander, but that the change was not triggered by a prisoner abuse scandal that has damaged the U.S. image in the Arab world.

The draft U.N. resolution is an integral part of Bush's plan for Iraq, but he needs a minimum of nine votes on the 15-member Security Council and no veto by France, Russia and China. The other permanent veto-wielding members are Washington and London.

French President Jacques Chirac called Bush by telephone to say sovereignty must be real and perceived as such by Iraqis.

BURNING ISSUE

A burning issue is the presence of U.S.-led forces after June 30, with some countries and many Iraqis saying it will undermine the interim government's independence. Bush says the troops are vital for security until Iraq can cope on its own.

France -- which along with Russia and China opposed the war that toppled Saddam -- and several other countries want an expiry date set for U.S.-led forces in Iraq, but with a right to renew the deployment if Iraqis agreed, their envoys said.

The draft calls for a review in a year, meaning the mandate for the foreign military presence is open-ended unless the Security Council adopts another resolution for withdrawal.

Ali Allawi, defense minister in the Governing Council in Baghdad, said he hoped newly trained Iraqi forces could replace U.S.-led forces within a year.

Bush, campaigning for re-election in November and fighting to reverse a slide to his lowest opinion poll ratings, said in a televised address U.S. forces would stay and even be reinforced to stabilize Iraq in the run-up to elections due next January.

"As the Iraqi people move closer to governing themselves, the terrorists are likely to become more active and more brutal," said Bush, facing accusations by opponents that he has led the United States into a Vietnam-style quagmire.

"WE WANT TRANSITION TO SUCCEED"

Several Security Council members said they expected the resolution to be adopted with some changes before June 30.

"We want the transition to succeed," said Algerian Ambassador Abdallah Baali, the council's only Arab member.

In Baghdad, the Governing Council welcomed the draft resolution but called for changes to give Iraq full control over troops on its soil and of its oil.

Washington proposes revenue from oil sales should be subject to international audit.

U.S. officials said they were exploring options and seeking input from the U.N. on whether it would be feasible to hold elections earlier than January.

"Certainly, December is a possibility," said a senior official, but other officials have said the violence in Iraq would preclude holding elections any sooner than January.

U.S. tanks were in action before dawn south of Baghdad, battling Mehdi Army militiamen loyal to rebel Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr around the town of Kufa.

At least 11 people were killed and 22 wounded.

Nearby, a doorway of the holiest Shi'ite shrine, Najaf's Imam Ali mosque, was damaged by what appeared to be rockets or mortar bombs. Militia officials said several people were hurt in an incident that could upset Iraq's majority Shi'ites.

Kimmitt denied U.S. forces had caused the damage.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
Its been played down by the press but this is actually a massive split between the US and the UK, its biggest ally in Iraq.

The concept that the Iraqi interim gov. could have a veto over US military operations there is just too 'outrageous' to even be discussed in Washington.

Day to day stuff, local security 'self defence' stuff stays in local control, but operations like the US Najaf operation will need Iraqi gov. approval.

It will be interesting to see who prevails, especially since the UK approach will be FAR more palatable to the UN for getting a resolution on the handover accepted.

And now Tony has 'gone public' he has let the cat out of the bag.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3745611.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3748647.stm

To add to the confusion, the current Draft Resolution does not support Tonys assertions.

An Iraqi veto would be a pain in the ass for the 'war on terror' propaganda agenda, plus the US military needs a boogyman to maintain its current unbelievable $$ consumption.

My own opinion is that the US military does not actually want to leave Iraq now that it has established a bridgehead in the Mid East.

The 30 June thing is a golden opportunity, or a smokescreen, at the moment it looks like a smokescreen.

When it clicks with the Iraqis that the US is staying put...

Interesting times ahead...

[This message was edited by eek on May 26, 2004 at 06:34 AM.]
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,239
Messages
13,565,771
Members
100,771
Latest member
Bronco87
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com