Bush administration rules out U.N. commanders for Iraq combat operations

AP ^ | 8/29/03 5:13 PM | BARRY SCHWEID

[Jean S]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration is optimistic it can attract peacekeeping troops for Iraq from at least India, Pakistan and Turkey by placing the operation under the U.N. flag.

As tentative drafts of a U.N. Security Council resolution were circulated Friday among administration officials, however, the State Department had yet to attract a consensus among them for expanding the U.N. role in Iraq.

[adam_az]

French President Jacques Chirac said Friday in Paris that the United States should transfer political power to the Iraqi people immediately. Only the United Nations, he said, "is fit to provide its legitimacy."

Care to elaborate on that point, Jacque? Are you saying that the US is "illegimate"?

[Dane]

France is pressing for an international force. At the same time, a State Department official said, France, Russia and other European governments want greater shares of reconstructing Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion, including some of the lucrative contracts American firms have obtained.

French President Jacques Chirac said Friday in Paris that the United States should transfer political power to the Iraqi people immediately. Only the United Nations, he said, "is fit to provide its legitimacy."

And the above comes from a leader of a country(france) that's culture neglected the welfare of it's older citizens in a heatwave all because of the french culture's selfish love of an August vacation.

Yeah right jacques you have room to speak. It is amazing to see the arrogance of the french.

No wonder the term "gall" is well embedded in the English language.

[SJackson]

Care to elaborate on that point, Jacque? Are you saying that the US is "illegimate"?

Well, now that you ask....

Unfortunately this entire effort to find an acceptable diplomatic way to bring in foreign troops contradicts Rumsfelds continued assertations that our troop levels are adequate.

[Pikamax]

this has more to do with financial than troop size, all this is a way for germany, france and Russia trying to weasel their way into Iraq along with UN to restart their money scaming deals they used to have.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

I support GW on this one. With U.N. combat troops in the area, the number of friendly fire "accidents" will jump dramatically. The last thing we need is those bumbling amateurs in with our troops. The U.N. blue helmet fags aren't worthy to shine the American boys' shoes.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Yep. Those slimy little Euro scumballs had nothing to offer but whining and about a thousand tons of warm crap. But now they want a piece of the action. Forget about it. The U.N. is hopelessly irrelevent.

[thinktwice]

Just as a camel pushing its nose under a tent will result in the camel owning that tent, allowing the United Nations to control "the legitimacy" of nations will result in the United Nations ruling all on earth -- with no sovereign citizenship allowed -- with no political rights (such as those guaranteed Americans by the "Bill of Rights") for any person -- with socialistic slavery for all.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Only the United Nations, he [Chirac] said, "is fit to provide its legitimacy."

Get bent, Chirac. You and your skiffy U.N. had your chance to try to be at least a little bit relevent. All you offered was excuses and BS as to why we should look the other way on Iraq while they actively plot to use WMDs on America. Do the world a favor and crawl back in your hole.

[Patriotways]

Watch out for the U.N state department OH U.S state department one of the same

[Yardstick]

Would more UN control and more foreign troops have kept the UN building from being bombed, or kept the Shiite mosque from being bombed, or keep the power on in Bhaghdad, or stop dead-enders from attacking the troops? No! But these are the things that will be pointed to as proof that more UN control and more foreign troops are required. This is all such a game.

[SJackson]

this has more to do with financial than troop size

Financial, only from a political perspective, we had money for the farm bill and TK's education iniatives. I think it has to do with GWB's unwillingness to go to congress over troop size (neccessary, he can't expand the force on his own), as though that's an admission of defeat, or at least misjudgement in Iraq.

Wrongheaded. Our allies bailed out on us, that's clear. Handled properly, the post 9/11 nation would respond.

[prairiebreeze]

The only thing the UN is fit to do it throw them. (fits) It's what they are best at.

Prairie

[CindyDawg]

Remind me. How good a job did the UN do after GW1 when GB Sr. put Iraq in their hands?

[Dr. Frank fan]

Unfortunately this entire effort to find an acceptable diplomatic way to bring in foreign troops contradicts Rumsfelds continued assertations that our troop levels are adequate.

Which "assertations" are those? By my reading of transcripts like this, Rumsfeld seems pretty consistent in saying that (a) there is no need to increase the number of U.S. troops,

John Abizaid's the combatant commander. He has indicated that he has the level of forces there, U.S. forces, that he believes is appropriate at the present time

but (b) acknowledging that we could use more foreign troops,

He has also said that we need to increase the coalition forces. And we've been working to do that, and they're flowing in now, in larger numbers.

These two points (no more US forces, yes let's increase coalition [read: non-US] forces) come through pretty loud and clear if you ever take the time to look at Rumsfeld's actual statements, though (admittedly) perhaps not if you rely on the headlines in the major media outlets.

[SJackson]

Two Points?

1-no more US forces

Naive, we made it our fight, don't suggest we don't have the staying power this soon.

2-increase coalition

WHAT COALITIAN? And what price to form one after we've paid the price in blood.

And you accuse me of not reading beyond the hedalines. :>)

I love Rummy. The answer, not to troop levels but to the twelve month problem in Iraq, is right in your link.

...we are putting a full court press on trying to increase the number of Iraqis.

The idea that a 40,000 man army (and I believe that number is State's work) can defend Iraq and it's borders with with hostile neighbors on the east and west is ludicrous. We'll never leave. Our objective over the next two years should be turning security over to the Iraqis, no small task.

[livius]

I think you're right (about turning security over to Iraqis) but the problem is - which Iraqis? As today's bombing shows, they're almost too busy trying to kill each other to even bother with us anymore.

It's going to take at least 2 years to teach them how to run a civil society. I read an article in the Journal the other day that described how frustrated American soldiers were with the absolute passivity of the Iraqis. Part of this is the result, no doubt, of Islam, and part of it is the result of having lived under a very nasty dictator for several decades. But whatever the cause, the result is that the Iraqis don't really seem to realize that it's their responsibility.

However, I'm glad GWB has ruled out this stupid UN command idea.

[Rome2000]

The administration would not consider putting the operation under U.N. control

Yeah, they'll just have to elect a Democrat to the White House for that to happen.

Maybe they can raise Les Aspin from the grave and he can refuse to send in any more armor, like he did in Somalia.

[Dr. Frank fan]

1-no more US forces Naive, we made it our fight, don't suggest we don't have the staying power this soon.

Uh, it's not me who's suggesting it, it's General Abizaid (who Rumsfeld was citing). Why don't you take it up with him, since you know better than he does what is needed on the ground over there?

increase coalition WHAT COALITIAN?

In this context, the "coalitian", or coalition as it is spelled in America, refers to that group of nations which is participating in the ongoing occupation and pacification of Iraq. Right now I believe (and could be wrong) that it includes the U.S., Great Britain, Australia, and Poland, among others. It could get bigger (or smaller). Nations could be added (or drop out).

That coalition.

Now, indeed General Abizaid has said he could use more foreign troops. Despite what you say, Rumsfeld has heard Abizaid and shared this info with us in press conferences, by saying things like "He [Abizaid] has also said that we need to increase the coalition forces. And we've been working to do that, and they're flowing in now, in larger numbers." You made it seem as if Rumsfeld has said that a larger number of troops in Iraq is not needed, and this quote shows that you are wrong.

And what price to form one after we've paid the price in blood.

?

First, it's nonsensical to speak of "forming" the coalition cold turkey. We have one right now, as I said. The object would be to either convince current members of the coalition to add more troops, or to convince other nations to join the coalition.

Second, you ask "what price". That is a fair question. Hell if I know the answer. I assume that the price to get, say, Mexico to join the coalition would be far, far higher than the price to get India to join the coalition, since India has been bandying the idea about, while on the other hand what the hell does Mexico care about Iraq.

It is true, as I think you mean to say, that failure to get new nations to join the coalition immediately, itself, comes with a price - namely, a higher risk to our troops there. On the other hand, at the same time, if we make huge concessions to get, say, France to join the coalition and send troops to take the load off, that could be a high price, as well. There is a trade-off involved, and whether that trade-off is worth it is something that depends on which country we're talking about, how many troops they are likely to be willing to send, how skilled those troops are, what concessions the country would ask for in return, and how much benefit (with respect to our mission) we would get from having those troops join us. I don't know the answer to any of those questions, and neither do you, so it would be silly for us to sound off on whether the trade-off is worth it, wouldn't it? We simply don't know either way.

And you accuse me of not reading beyond the hedalines. :>)

Yes, indeed I do. You thought Rummy has been saying we "don't need more troops", and that is not true if you actually read Rummy's quotes. It is only true if you only read headlines, because I'm aware there are some headlines which have given that impression. But those headlines are misleading and inaccurately characterizing Rumsfeld's comments, as I've shown. Rumsfeld said explicitly that we could use more troops in the coalition, so I don't know what your problem is.

The idea that a 40,000 man army (and I believe that number is State's work) can defend Iraq and it's borders with with hostile neighbors on the east and west is ludicrous.

The way I read it, the Iraqi force was meant for internal security, not to defend the borders. Anyway, so you're saying, 40,000 Iraqi troops wouldn't be enough to defend internal security of Iraq. That's fascinating. What is the magic number then? Let's see your calculations, data, estimates, assumptions, etc. Maybe you know something Rummy doesn't know. Share it with the rest of the class. What is Rummy missing that you know better?

We'll never leave.

"Never"? Perhaps you mean to say, US troops will be there for a long time. I suspect you are correct. We knew that would be the case going in. Anyone who didn't, should have.

Our objective over the next two years should be turning security over to the Iraqis, no small task.

Indeed.