Limited Iraqi Sovereignty Planned
Coalition Troops Won't Answer to Interim Government, Wolfowitz Says
The new Iraqi interim government scheduled to take control on July 1 will have only "limited sovereignty" over the country and no authority over U.S. and coalition military forces already there, senior State and Defense officials told Congress this week.
In testimony before the Senate and the House Armed Services committees, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman said the United States will operate under the transitional law approved by the Iraqi Governing Council and a resolution approved by the U.N. Security Council last October. Both those provisions give control of the country's security to U.S. military commanders.
Whereas in the past the turnover was described as granting total sovereignty to the appointed Iraqi government, Grossman yesterday termed it "limited sovereignty" because "it is limited by the transitional law . . . and the U.N. resolution."
Under the current plan, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's special adviser, Lakhdar Brahimi, will appoint a temporary government that will run Iraqi government agencies for six months and prepare the way for January 2005 elections of an assembly that will select a second, temporary government and write a constitution.
Wolfowitz described the July 1 government as "purely temporary" and there to "run ministries . . . but most importantly, they'll be setting up elections." In addition he said, the government will run the police force "but in coordination with Centcom [the U.S. Central Command], because this is not a normal police situation."
"So we transfer sovereignty, but the military decisions continue to reside indefinitely in the control of the American commander. Is that correct?" Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) asked the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard B. Myers, on Tuesday. "That's correct," Myers replied.
"Sovereignty is not something we can, or want, to take back," Wolfowitz said yesterday, outlining efforts to develop a large, new armed force there. "The security of Iraq . . . will be part of a multinational force under U.S. command, including Iraqi forces."
Wolfowitz's comments came as he and Myers conceded that war costs in Iraq are rising, and senior House Republicans pledged to give the military more money this year, whether or not the Bush administration asks for it.
Wolfowitz, under questioning before the House committee, said that as of January, the United States was spending $4.7 billion a month, and he noted that "there may be a bump up" because of the 20,000 more troops currently there. Myers told the panel that intense combat, higher-than-expected troop levels and depleted military hardware "are going to cost us more money."
About $700 million in added troop costs have been identified, and Myers said the service chiefs have identified a $4 billion shortfall.
"We thought we could get through all of August," Myers said. "We'd have to figure out how to do September. . . . We are working those estimates right now."
"And we've got to take a look and see if we have the wherewithal inside the [Defense Department] budget," he added.
Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) replied, "The committee, I think, General, is inclined to help you perhaps more than has been suggested by the Pentagon."
But military officials, defense contractors and lawmakers from both political parties say an emergency infusion of cash will be needed far sooner - perhaps by midsummer. Members of Congress pleaded yesterday with the administration to be more forthcoming.
- Josh White and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post
The new Iraqi interim government scheduled to take control on July 1 will have only "limited sovereignty" over the country and no authority over U.S. and coalition military forces already there, senior State and Defense officials told Congress this week.
In testimony before the Senate and the House Armed Services committees, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman said the United States will operate under the transitional law approved by the Iraqi Governing Council and a resolution approved by the U.N. Security Council last October. Both those provisions give control of the country's security to U.S. military commanders.
Whereas in the past the turnover was described as granting total sovereignty to the appointed Iraqi government, Grossman yesterday termed it "limited sovereignty" because "it is limited by the transitional law . . . and the U.N. resolution."
Under the current plan, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's special adviser, Lakhdar Brahimi, will appoint a temporary government that will run Iraqi government agencies for six months and prepare the way for January 2005 elections of an assembly that will select a second, temporary government and write a constitution.
Wolfowitz described the July 1 government as "purely temporary" and there to "run ministries . . . but most importantly, they'll be setting up elections." In addition he said, the government will run the police force "but in coordination with Centcom [the U.S. Central Command], because this is not a normal police situation."
"So we transfer sovereignty, but the military decisions continue to reside indefinitely in the control of the American commander. Is that correct?" Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) asked the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard B. Myers, on Tuesday. "That's correct," Myers replied.
"Sovereignty is not something we can, or want, to take back," Wolfowitz said yesterday, outlining efforts to develop a large, new armed force there. "The security of Iraq . . . will be part of a multinational force under U.S. command, including Iraqi forces."
Wolfowitz's comments came as he and Myers conceded that war costs in Iraq are rising, and senior House Republicans pledged to give the military more money this year, whether or not the Bush administration asks for it.
Wolfowitz, under questioning before the House committee, said that as of January, the United States was spending $4.7 billion a month, and he noted that "there may be a bump up" because of the 20,000 more troops currently there. Myers told the panel that intense combat, higher-than-expected troop levels and depleted military hardware "are going to cost us more money."
About $700 million in added troop costs have been identified, and Myers said the service chiefs have identified a $4 billion shortfall.
"We thought we could get through all of August," Myers said. "We'd have to figure out how to do September. . . . We are working those estimates right now."
"And we've got to take a look and see if we have the wherewithal inside the [Defense Department] budget," he added.
Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) replied, "The committee, I think, General, is inclined to help you perhaps more than has been suggested by the Pentagon."
But military officials, defense contractors and lawmakers from both political parties say an emergency infusion of cash will be needed far sooner - perhaps by midsummer. Members of Congress pleaded yesterday with the administration to be more forthcoming.
- Josh White and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post
publicado por MP às 11:58
