U.S. Plan to Transfer Power In Iraq May Shift Drastically
By Colum Lynch and Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 6, 2004; Page A17
UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 5 -- The U.S. plan to hand over power in Iraq is increasingly likely to undergo major changes rather than merely "refinements," because of increasing skepticism about the June 30 deadline for creating a provisional government and erosion of support for the proposal to use caucuses to select it, according to senior U.S. and U.N. officials.
The Bush administration still publicly clings to its transition plan, but a U.N. team scheduled to arrive in Iraq as early as Friday has been given a free hand to present its own blueprint for the country's political transition if it determines elections cannot be held by June in Iraq, U.S. and U.N. officials say.
In a sign of their growing anxiety, U.S. officials have also crafted some dramatically new ideas, in the hope of bringing a smooth conclusion to the struggling occupation. The list has been shared with the United Nations, the officials add.
One option is extending the June 30 deadline for installing an Iraqi government to allow enough time for the direct elections demanded by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Iraq's leading cleric. There is already talk about a hypothetical extension to Jan. 1, 2005.
This could mean that the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority would stay longer, which could carry political costs for President Bush in an election year and anger Iraqis who want an end to foreign occupation, U.S. officials concede.
....
"We are now open to enough refinements that the transition plan is not necessarily going to look like a caucus or act like a caucus when it eventually happens," an administration official said. "But we have to have a handoff, and working out that part is tricky. And there's no consensus yet on an alternative."
A well-placed U.S. official said the issue is so sensitive that it has become a "radioactive topic."
Bush told Annan at a meeting this week in Washington that he is committed to the current deadline. But a senior State Department official said that United States is now willing to let the United Nations determine what will work.
"We [have] enough respect for the U.N. that we know it may present options that are not June 30," the official said. "We're still thinking about making June 30 -- and not not making June 30. And we've conveyed that to the U.N. . . . But we can't rule out that they may come back with something different about what we can do by June 30 or by another date."
Hmm. No news here we haven't been expecting, but let's dissect the story a little. There isn't one named source in the whole piece. The identifications are "SAO", State and UN, which is probably the UN Ambassador's office at State.
This is a really important policy shift in the wake of George Tenet pushing back the Iraq intel blame to 1600 Penn yesterday. And it is probably giving Team Rove the cold sweats; the amount of additional risk the occupation has just taken on has a value which is impossible to calculate. It looks to me like Powell just won the most important interior administration power struggle before the election commences in ernest.
I believe I said yesterday that the wind has shifted in earnest. The bills are coming due a little sooner than Team Rove would have liked. Hubris always sows the seeds of its own demise, we've known that since the Greeks. Humility has the grace of keeping you out of your own way.
Scoop to WaPo, by the way. Nothing up on the NYT website as I prepare to put this one to bed. But notice that it is on A17 of the Post.