Iraq War: Looking forward to June 30

One of many puzzlements in the Iraq War is the question of to whom it will be that we turn over "sovereignty" on June 30.  Since Iraq has virtually no army, and the police that the occupation authority (CPA) has trained are largely unreliable if not downright hostile to the US, the military support for the new government will be almost exclusively American troops.

The "sovereign" government will exist at American discretion.  It will be, initially at least, what would be more politely called a client regime and more descriptively a puppet government.

Ron Brownstein notes the chagrin of many Republican true believers that Bush is making noises about needing the help of the hated United Nations: Bush's Tilt to U.N. Shifts Iraq Debate Los Angeles Times 04/21/04.  But he seems to accept at face value Bush’s claim that he is relying on the UN representative’s initiative in selecting the new "sovereign" government:

In the last week, Bush has scrambled the American debate over the occupation of Iraq by declaring that he will defer to U.N. special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi on the selection of the Iraqi government that will assume power after June 30.

Bush had long resisted a major role for the U.N. in Iraq. His new move has blurred the contrast between him and the Massachusetts senator, who has insisted for months that the United States would not attract more military and financial support in Iraq unless it ceded the international community more control over development of the new Iraqi government. …

Bush, in a joint news conference Friday with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, gave Brahimi almost unlimited latitude to design the interim Iraqi government, which is slated to retain power until January, when elections for a permanent government are planned. Asked who would serve in the interim government, Bush said, "That's going to be decided by Mr. Brahimi."

Asked if Brahimi had carte blanche to design the interim government, one senior White House aide said, "More or less, but with the understanding … that this is something that has to be democratic, has to be by June 30 and has to be widely accepted by the Iraqis."

Molly Ivins is a bit more jaundiced about the handwriting on the wall: A foolish consistency WorkingforChange.com 04/15/04.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the administration has announced its intention to make John Negroponte our first ambassador to postwar Iraq, to take up residence in what will be the world's largest embassy after June 30. Negroponte was one of the key figures in the Iran-Contra scandal, the cockeyed plot that sold American arms to Iran and used the money to finance an illegal war in Nicaragua. So, our first ambassador will be a man who armed Iraq's enemy during that war.

Negroponte speaks no Arabic, he is a specialist in covert operations in Latin America, and he has no Middle East experience aside from the Iran-Contra insanity. He is, however, a bona fide, certified, chicken-fried neo-con. Is anyone else appalled?

I find this appointment terrifying, and it leaves me afraid the administration is contemplating something I have heretofore dismissed as a loony-left conspiracy theory. Could it possibly consider handing over Iraqi sovereignty on June 30 to any combination of Iraqis that includes Ahmad Chalabi? Chalabi is the convicted crook, demonstrated liar, purveyor of false intelligence and con man who so charmed Dick Cheney and the other neo-con hawks that they still half-believe him. He is now on the Iraqi Governing Council, earning an enviable reputation for corruption.

Joe Conason is a bit more positive about the implications of the Negroponte appointment:

In another signal of the importance suddenly accorded to international institutions by the White House, the President has also nominated U.N. Ambassador John Negroponte to serve as ambassador to the new Iraq. Mr. Negroponte, one of the nation's most experienced diplomats, was notably unenthusiastic about the drive to war last year, even while he dutifully carried out the President's reckless policies.

But Matt Yglesias at the American Prospect online is not encouraged by it:

Negroponte speaks no Arabic and has no background in the Middle East or the Islamic world. What he does have is a good deal of experience with counterinsurgency. Bad experience. Experience dating from the waning days of the Vietnam War through the Reagan administration's policies in Central America and consisting largely of propping up right-wing dictators, violating human rights, and working to deceive the Congress and the American people.

Josh Marshall takes note of a couple of developments that would give credence to Molly Ivins’ fears.  The Chalabi clan has been given possession of the files of Saddam’s old secret police agency: a powerful tool that can be very useful in smearing political opponents and protecting cronies.  And they’re going to be in charge of the war crimes tribunal which will try Saddam Hussein as well as others.

Given the Bush crew’s record in Iraq, we can’t exclude the possibility that they’re just blundering along.  But unfortunately there is reason to worry that they intend to go ahead with installing Ahmed Chalabi, the Pentagon’s favorite candidate for post-Saddam leader, in a major role in the "sovereign" regime.