Iraq full sovereignty on June 30. Or not?

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
I was reading yesterdays press conference and came across this...

Q Scott, on the question of post-June 30th military operations in Iraq, London is continuing to say that the final political control would rest with the new Iraqi government, whereas we had Colin Powell saying yesterday that, ultimately, if it came to it, U.S. commanders would have the final say. Both Mr. Blair and Mr. Powell can't both be right. Which one has got it right?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think that we're saying the same thing. One, the Iraqi government, come June 30th, will have full sovereignty. We've made that very clear. And we've also talked about how we work in partnership with the Iraqi interim government going forward. We will work in partnership with that government. We will work in close cooperation with the Iraqi security forces. We want to get to a point where the Iraqis are able to provide for their own security. Right now there are ongoing security threats that they face. And we will be there to partner with those security forces as we train and equip them to assume those responsibilities in the future.

There are certainly a number of examples elsewhere, where we have worked out the security arrangements with the sovereign government that is in place. We carry out this kind of cooperation in Afghanistan, on a daily basis with the government in Afghanistan.

Q I'm aware of that. But let's say push came to shove, who would

have the final say?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let me make clear, the United Nations Security Council resolution points out that the multinational force under unified command will be in Iraq with the consent of the Iraqi government, and it also talks about how we will be providing a letter to the President of the United Nations Security Council outlining the relationship between that interim government and the multinational force.

Certainly, we have made it very clear that American troops will be under American command. Iraqi forces will be under an Iraqi chain of command. And we're going to work together to address these security threats. If the United States forces are in a position where they need to protect themselves, they will do so. But there are plenty of examples of where we've worked in close cooperation with governments that are sovereign to support their security efforts.


...but so far I've been unable to find an article where Powell says this.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Thanks conjur. Powell was a little vague, but i guess when using that magical word...necessary...it's best to leave the door ajar. ;)
 

chrisms

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2003
6,615
0
0
You can't give Iraq full sovereignty with foreign troops occupying the country. So the June 30th date is symbolic at best.
 

Passions

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2000
6,855
3
0
Originally posted by: chrisms
You can't give Iraq full sovereignty with foreign troops occupying the country. So the June 30th date is symbolic at best.

Full sovernieghty would result in a major catastrophe. Violent bloodshed. Clashing militias. Rival clerics. Ethnic cleansing. Islamic state haven for Al Queda/Taliban/Islamic Jihad. This is something you don't want. Time. Time is what you need. Sovernighty should be dished out slowly, one at a time, etc.
 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
...Violent bloodshed. Clashing militias. Rival clerics. Ethnic cleansing. Islamic state haven for Al Queda/Taliban/Islamic Jihad...

You just described the situation in Iraq as of today.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: Passions
Originally posted by: chrisms
You can't give Iraq full sovereignty with foreign troops occupying the country. So the June 30th date is symbolic at best.

Full sovernieghty would result in a major catastrophe. Violent bloodshed. Clashing militias. Rival clerics. Ethnic cleansing. Islamic state haven for Al Queda/Taliban/Islamic Jihad. This is something you don't want. Time. Time is what you need. Sovernighty should be dished out slowly, one at a time, etc.


Can I ask why you think they are saying that Iraq will have 'full sovereignty' then?
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Does Germany have full sovereignty? That words a pisser, I'm sure I spelled it wrong...tongue twister anyone?
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Does Germany have full sovereignty? That words a pisser, I'm sure I spelled it wrong...tongue twister anyone?


You spelled it right alchy.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Passions
Originally posted by: chrisms
You can't give Iraq full sovereignty with foreign troops occupying the country. So the June 30th date is symbolic at best.

Full sovernieghty would result in a major catastrophe. Violent bloodshed. Clashing militias. Rival clerics. Ethnic cleansing. Islamic state haven for Al Queda/Taliban/Islamic Jihad. This is something you don't want. Time. Time is what you need. Sovernighty should be dished out slowly, one at a time, etc.

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, Mass Hysteria!!


heh heh (Click 'n drag)