Cross-posted from my
blog.
The Washington Post reports what we already knew:
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."
-snip-
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.
To me, this plan sounds like the Oslo Accords in many ways. The Israeli government handed a false sovereignty over to the Palestinian Authority. While the Israelis maintained control over the borders and security system, they could blame the PA for every terrorist attack that occurred. From the
Middle East Report and Information Project:
The Oslo agreements, which were to be implemented in phases, made no mention of occupation and postponed, until the final stage, negotiations over the most contentious issues, including borders, refugees, Jerusalem and settlements. It failed to address the fundamental power imbalance between Israel, a regional hegemon, and Palestinians, a stateless, occupied population. Palestinians hoped that the Oslo process would lead to an end of occupation and the creation of an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But Oslo's phased process, and the absence of an effective enforcement mechanism or a clear end goal, allowed Israel, as the more powerful party, to continue a policy of territorial expansion, leaving Palestinians with little recourse.
Obviously, the analogy only extends itself so far. The U.S. occupation of Iraq is not the same type as the colonial project the Israeli right-wing is seeking in the occupied territories. However, I think there are very obvious similarities. The Iraqis are given "sovereignty," but little or no control over the military. At the same time, the U.S. can continues to set up military bases and privatize Iraqi industry.