Posted on 11/16/2003 7:28:57 PM PST by knak
Governing body in Baghdad wants to limit American military to patrolling borders and guarding oil installations
Rory McCarthy in Baghdad
Monday November 17, 2003
The Guardian
Iraq's governing council wants to significantly reduce the role of the US military after the rapidly advanced handover of sovereignty in July next year. The American-appointed governing council signed a groundbreaking agreement with the US civil administration in Baghdad on Saturday, paving the way for a new transitional Iraqi government to take power much faster than originally intended.
US officials, including the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, have insisted that American troops will stay in Iraq. But the governing council wants to limit their presence as much as possible. It envisages a much restricted role for US troops - simply guarding the national border and oil installations - leaving the majority of internal security duties to Iraqi forces.
There has also been a suggestion of inviting a UN-led multinational force to replace the coalition.
Entifadh Qanbar, a senior member of the Iraqi National Congress, the party led by the Pentagon-favoured exile, Ahmad Chalabi, said yesterday that US troops should stop patrolling Iraqi cities and confine their operations to securing the country's long, porous borders once the new government was established.
"American troops will go to their camps in Iraq," said Mr Qanbar. "They will stay there and they will protect the Iraqi borders. Everything else will be in the hands of Iraqis."
In recent weeks the governing council has increased pressure on the US administration to hand over responsibility for security to Iraqis, who they say are better suited to the job because they speak Arabic and understand local factional and cultural influences.
Adnan Pachachi, a former Iraqi foreign minister and another member of the governing council, said the Iraqi government might invite a UN-led multinational military force to replace the current, often unpopular, US-led operation.
"We have been told by many countries they are prepared to send troops to Iraq after they are asked by a sovereign Iraqi government when the occupation has ended," he said.
Yet the US military appears keen to have a significant role in the future Iraq. Under the agreement signed between the governing council and the Coalition Provisional Authority, the US administration in Baghdad, coalition forces are to be given "wide latitude to provide for the safety and security of the Iraqi people".
Yesterday Mr Rumsfeld argued that the role of the US military was separate from the handover of political power.
"We're working to bring in additional coalition forces; we're making plans for the rotation of our forces out and new US and coalition forces in," he said.
Despite the speedier timetable for the transition of power, the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said the process was still too slow. "My view is that it is too late. We need to move faster. This is an extremely urgent situation," he told the French daily La Croix in an interview published today.
Mr Villepin proposed creating an assembly composed of members of existing groups within Iraq and other "forces" that would elect a government by the end of the year.
Saturday's agreement marks a significant reversal of America's political planning in Iraq. Originally the US wanted the Iraqis to write a constitution before holding general elections at the end of next year, when sovereignty would be handed to Iraqis.
That timeframe has appeared increasingly unrealistic and the US has promised to hand power to an indirectly elected Iraqi government by July next year. The writing of a constitution has been delayed by at least a year.
Members of the governing council applauded the agreement, saying they hoped it would help reduce the worsening guerrilla violence. "Security is a result of sovereignty not the other way around," said Mr Qanbar. "You cannot have security and then sovereignty."
If the plan goes according to schedule, general elections will be held by December 31 2005.
This is pure anti-American Guardian BS. The interim governing council is a worthless collection of missing in action puppets . I’m sure the Guardian can find a confused member or two to echo the sentiments of what they want to project.
I'd say we need a new council ...
Bring us the head of Saddam and the thugs that are ambushing our troops and then we'll talk.
Well, at least Iraq will have its border guarded.
I know it's the guardian, but I've been listening to Drudge for an hour and am quite po'd!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.