by TChris

Ahmad Chalabi (a man of doubtful credibility, as Talkleft discussed here and here) finally said something that's undeniably true:

"The Iraqi people will not accept limited, questionable sovereignty.... That means they should have complete control over their armed forces and over Iraqi revenues and be able to dispose of them according to the decisions of the provisional government."

Chalabi wants the Bush administration to give the interim Iraqi government control over its oil revenues and its military when power is transferred on June 30. Without that autonomy, Chalabi says that the notion of sovereignty will be meaningless. He's right, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen.

The revenues are now deposited in a Federal Reserve Bank of New York account, which is controlled by the United States. Iraqis are expected to have control of expenditures after June, but U.S. officials want a U.S.-authorized international board, which monitors the accounts, to remain in place.

While the Bush administration has long denied its intent to install a puppet government in Iraq, it wants to control Iraq's oil revenue through a puppet board. That isn't sovereignty.

Colin Powell says the U.S. military will leave if asked to do so on July 1 by the interim government. Maybe he's confident that the U.S. won't install an interim government that would make that request. Maybe he sees such a request as an exit strategy for the Bush administration.

Or maybe he's just not on the same page as others in the administration. Lt. Gen. Walter Sharp, testifying before Congress on Thursday, contradicted a state department official who advanced the Powell view. Sharp asserted that only an elected government could kick the U.S. military out of the country.

Chalabi points out that U.S. forces killed 1,500 Iraqis last month. While the U.S. may argue that its military presence is needed to assure security for the new Iraqi government, it's easy to see why Iraqis might think it's time to take care of their own business.