US, Britain signal apparent differences on Iraq

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N24617017.htm

BAGHDAD, May 25 (Reuters) - Britain said on Tuesday a planned interim Iraqi government will have final control over foreign troops, but Washington said its forces will be under U.S. command and do whatever necessary to protect themselves.

The apparent difference between the allies could complicate their efforts to secure U.N. Security Council endorsement for a June 30 handover in Iraq, particularly after France, Russia and China signalled they wanted changes to a draft resolution.

"The final political control (over foreign troops) remains with the Iraqi government. That's what the transfer of sovereignty means," British Prime Minister Tony Blair told reporters in London.

But U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told a Washington news conference: "Ultimately...U.S. forces remain under U.S. command and will do what is necessary to protect themselves."

more

[Rochambeau]

1. Of course US troops under iraqi command is

hard to imagine and the transfer of sovereignty is a joke if the troops remain under an occupation command and violence and death will keep increasing. That's exactly why UN got to go there ! Such a resolution could be proposed in a heartbeat by France for instance and supported by the security council if a veto from the US was not the most obvious scenario by now.
Can someone explain that to Powell and the other bushistas ?

[MasonJar]

2. Colin Powell has made a big mistake in joining this bunch; he

has lost all sense of proportion and perspective. He could have been in Gore's administration (probably) and look where he ended up...a total lackey for evil. If he had been worth a dime he would have left eons ago. For him it is too late.