The major papers today are highlighting what they say is a major difference between the UK and the US on Iraqi sovereignty after June 30. Chief among them is the New York Times’ Patrick Tyler, who claims to read a difference between Tony Blair’s and Colin Powell’s statements. (This was also BBC World TV’s lead story.) Blair said: “If there’s a political decision as to whether you go into a place like Falluja in a particular way, that has got be done with the consent of the Iraqi government.” He elaborated:
That’s what the transfer of sovereignty means. That doesn’t mean to say that our troops are going to be ordered to do something that our troops don’t want to do. The political control shifts, the operational issues have to be decided under various agreements… It may be decided on an operation-to-operation basis.
Powell, for his part, said that “we would take into account whatever” Iraqi officials say “at a political and military level,” but if the American military had to act “in a way that might not be in total consonance with what the Iraqi interim government might want to do at a particularly moment in time, U.S. forces remain under U.S. command and will do what is necessary to protect themselves.” I’m sorry but where is the big difference? Both Blair and Powell seem to me to be saying exactly the same thing. (Cheney might wish for something else.) The Washington Post offers the following construction: Powell “phrased the issue differently.” Different phraseology is now a major split in the alliance? Obviously, coalition forces, if attacked or in danger, will not ask the new Iraqi government for permission to defend themselves. But equally, offensive operations, especially if they have delicate political repercussions, will be cleared by the future Iraqi government. That’s what Powell and Blair both said. (The BBC, of course, edited Powell’s quote so that it didn’t include the final, contextual phrase: “and will do what is necessary to protect themselves.” Just when I thought they were improving.)
The Dish 