Bush Hints At Sending More Troops To Iraq

Independent (UK) ^ | 11-22-2003 | Rupert Cornwell

[blam]

Bush hints at sending more troops to Iraq

By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
22 November 2003

President George Bush has raised the possibility that next year American troop strength in Iraq might be increased, rather than reduced, if the fraught security in the country requires it.

Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, and other senior administration officials have left little doubt US forces will remain in Iraq, even after the accelerated handover of most authority to a provisional Iraqi government in mid-2004. But the Pentagon's plan, under a complicated rotation system announced last month, is for total troop strength in Iraq to drop to 105,000 by next May from the present 130,000.

Military analysts say that without mass call-ups of reservists there are not enough regular troops to maintain forces at the present level beyond the first quarter of 2004. But at Mr Bush's press conference in London with Tony Blair, he seemed to startle even his close aides near by, by suggesting the number could rise. "I said that were going to bring our troops home starting next year?" he asked rhetorically in response to a question. "We could have fewer troops in Iraq, we could have the same number, we could have more troops in Iraq."

Afterwards, Pentagon officials insisted the rotation plans had not changed. But Mr Bush was indirectly responding to Republicans in Congress, notably Senator John McCain, his opponent in the 2000 primaries, who say only more troops will bring stability in Iraq.

Other countries refused to provide the extra 15,000-strong division Washington wanted. Mr Bush seemed to have been sending a message that he would not "cut and run" from Iraq for political reasons, as the 2004 election approached.

[Loyal Buckeye]

Total misrepresentation of what Pres. Bush said. His answer was more theoretical and he dwelled much more on having the Iraqis take over, thus reducing the number of troops needed.

[armymarinemom]

He didn't hint at sending more troops. He stated that we will have what we need. That could be more troops or less troops. Mabye everyone needs to speak slowly for the press. They seem to have trouble with more than one sentence at a time.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

The press needs a spanking.

[freetradenotfree]

U.N. names three nations as likely suppliers to Iran
Russia, China, Pakistan among suspected sellers of nuclear equipment

---

Associated Press
Originally published November 21, 2003



VIENNA, Austria - The United Nations' atomic energy agency has identified China, Pakistan and Russia as among the probable suppliers of equipment Iran used to conduct suspected nuclear weapons programs, diplomats said yesterday.
The diplomats spoke to the Associated Press as the International Atomic Energy Agency weighed how harshly to censure Tehran for two decades of covert nuclear activities Iran says were aimed at peaceful purposes.











The IAEA's 35-nation board is debating the wording of a resolution that would satisfy both U.S. calls for strong condemnation of Iran's past cover-ups and European desires to keep Iran cooperating by focusing on its recent openness.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA director-general, said agency delegates were discussing a "quite strong" resolution. The talks, which broke off yesterday after less than two hours, are to continue today.

While Iran has acknowledged nearly two decades of concealment, it has recently begun cooperating with the agency in response to international pressure. To that end, it has suspended uranium enrichment - an activity that has raised U.S. suspicions of a nuclear weapons agenda.

Iran says it enriched uranium only to produce power. While admitting that some of its enrichment equipment had traces of weapons-grade highly enriched uranium, it insists those traces were inadvertently imported on material it purchased abroad.

But Tehran says it cannot identify the countries of origin because it bought the centrifuges and laser enrichment equipment through third parties.

The Vienna-based IAEA must know where the equipment came from if it is to ascertain whether Iran is telling the truth about the source of trace uranium.

The diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity, declined to say how the agency established the probable origin of the equipment.

Pakistan, suspected from the start, has repeatedly denied any involvement.

Russia likewise denied that it was a willing participant in providing enrichment technology to Iran for the purpose of a nuclear weapons program.

Nikolai Shingaryov, chief spokesman for the Nuclear Power Ministry, said yesterday that Russia signed a contract with Iran in the mid-1990s to deliver equipment that could be used for laser enrichment of uranium.

Russia canceled the contract several years later in response to U.S. pressure, and the equipment, still in the experimental phase, "never reached Iran in full," he said.

A senior diplomat said yesterday's meeting was adjourned on Iran's request but that European nations and the United States were taking advantage of the break to bridge their rift on a resolution censuring Iran's past transgression while recognizing its new openness.

Reflecting the seriousness of the divide, President Bush was expected to take up the issue with British Prime Minister Tony Blair as the president visits London this week.

A senior diplomat said the Europeans were "now talking breaches of Iran's obligations to comply with safeguards agreements" that constitute part of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Such language would be more acceptable to the "Gang of Four" - Australia, Canada, Japan and the United States - who had held out for stronger wording, said the diplomat.

U.S. State Department spokesman Adam Ereli told reporters that Washington sought "firm action" from the board.

"We expect the board ... to find that Iran has been in noncompliance with its safeguards agreement and to report that noncompliance to the Security Council," he said.

In reality, diplomats at the Vienna meeting said the United States would likely settle for less - toughened language in a revised draft but no direct mention of the Security Council, which carries with it the implicit threat of sanctions.

Quoting from the still-evolving draft, another diplomat said the text welcomed Iran's recent cooperation and said the board "is operating on the assumption" that Tehran is giving the agency a "correct, full and final picture of Iran's past and present nuclear program."

But it also stated that the board "deplores past breaches of ... [Iran's] obligations" to comply with IAEA safeguards meant to prevent nonproliferation and "calls upon Iran to adhere strictly to the terms of its safeguard agreement in both letter and spirit."

Under the stronger draft, the board reserves the right to immediately call an emergency session should any evidence surface that Iran was guilty of "significant failures."