Potential for clash seen in security
WASHINGTON -- With the handover of Iraqi sovereignty yesterday, the US-led military coalition in Iraq ceased to be an occupying power, yet it will continue to be the primary guarantor of security, a dichotomy that could lead to disputes between the two sides in the coming weeks and months, according to some US and Iraqi officials.
President Bush portrayed the handover as a victory for Iraqis that will help quell the bloody insurgency.
''The United States military and our coalition partners have made a clear, specific, and continuing mission in Iraq," President Bush said in Istanbul yesterday after the surprise announcement that the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority handed power to an interim Iraqi government two days ahead of schedule. ''As we train Iraqi security forces, we will help those forces to find and destroy the killers. We'll protect infrastructure from the attacks. We'll provide security for the upcoming elections."
However, the interface between the 140,000 American troops and 22,000 allied forces in Iraq and the new Iraqi authorities remains murky, according to some US and Iraqi officials, and only time will tell how the new ''partnership" will operate in the face of a continuing battle against insurgents and foreign terrorists.
On security matters, it is unclear where Iraqi sovereignty begins and American military superiority ends. The United States maintains it will have ''operational control" over its forces," but says that in some instances the Iraqis can veto an operation.
Bush's comments yesterday suggested the potential for disagreement. ''Operating in a sovereign nation, our military will act in close consultation with the Iraqi government," Bush said. ''Yet coalition forces will remain under coalition command," he added.
In previous cases where US troops maintained a significant presence inside a sovereign nation, the two sides have signed a ''status of forces agreement," or SOFA, clearly laying out the roles of each side, but noting that ultimate authority remains with the host government. US troops in Germany and South Korea operate under such agreements.
Yet one does not exist with Iraq's interim government. And many key issues still must be worked out. The Iraqi government, for example, has hinted that it might institute martial law in the coming days, and US forces would probably play a major role in its implementation. A senior administration official said yesterday that no such decision has been made, but acknowledged that the Iraqis may take some actions to ''strengthen" their hand against the insurgents.
Iraqi leaders in recent days have also raised the possibility that US-led forces could be asked to stand aside in some instances.
Hazem Sha'Alan, the new Iraqi defense minister, told reporters on Friday that it is widely believed that Iraqi forces are not prepared to deal with the security situation yet. But he added: ''We say the Iraqi forces have already received the initiative in this matter. And when the minister of Interior asks us to interfere in any particular operation, we will take the necessary steps and measures."
Another open question is the legal status of the estimated 20,000 private security personnel in the country working for the US-led military command and the new US Embassy in Baghdad.
Colonel Paul Hughes, former director of strategic planning for the US occupation authority, said a ''coordinating committee" is putting together clearer lines of responsibility, including naming some Iraqi officers to serve in the new US-led military command. 