Ain't it a bitch when the "evidence" says exactly the opposite of what they thought it did? That is nothing new to the JPS they have made turning facts into conspiracies an art form.
Facing a chronic shortage of foreign troops for peacekeeping missions, President Bush has decided to launch an international drive to boost the supply of available forces — a move that if successful could relieve some of the pressure on U.S. soldiers to join such operations, defense officials said.
A plan approved by Bush earlier this month calls for the United States to commit about $660 million over the next five years to train, equip and provide logistical support to forces in nations willing to participate in peace operations.
The campaign, known as the Global Peace Operations Initiative, will be aimed largely at Africa by expanding the peacekeeping skills of African forces and encouraging international military exercises in the region, where U.S. officials said much of the need exists.
But African forces developed under the program could be used in peace operations anywhere in the world, officials said. And the program also sets aside some assistance for armies in Asia, Latin America and Europe to enlarge their peacekeeping roles as well.
It is ambiguous as to who will be in command of this force. The Heritage Foundation proposal is to have the troops under US command. The Brookings proposal here and here propose to have the troops under multi-national command. I have found several references indicating that the GPOI is to be under UN command but nothing definitive.
This report by Walter Cronkite is ambiguous about command structure, but clearly states that the G8 agreement was to have the troops available for "United Nations sponsored projects":
Under the U.S. plan, an additional 75,000 troops from countries wishing to contribute to peace missions would receive training, equipment and logistical support from the United States or other G-8 members. These troops would be made available by their home countries for missions sponsored by the United Nations or by regional groups such as the Organization of African States or the European Union. The United States will put up at least the initial funds -- reportedly $660 million.
Snip
Unilateralism was put away, at least for the occasion. The Bush administration, this time, was not the bully, but a needy supplicant. Among other things, it wanted NATO peacekeepers in Iraq who could take some of the load off American forces there. Unfortunately, Bush did not receive any encouragement at Sea Island on that score.
But isn't it amazing? George Bush recently made a 180-degree policy turn regarding the United Nations.
Although it may not be exactly what the JBS said it was, it appears to be a very close approximation. The Bush Administration clearly proposes that American taxpayers fund African replacements for US troops currently on UN peacekeeping missions.
When Cronkite is gloating, you should be gagging.
For an interesting take on a series of issues in Africa, consider this.