Bush Looks to U.N. to Share Burden on Troops in Iraq

[mhr]

Hi All,

In a stunning turn around the Bush administration tacitly admits defeat. In today's NY Times it is reported that Colin Powell is drafting a new UN resolution seeking support for a multilateral force to occupy Iraq.

Apparently, the straw that broke the camel's back is a new Congressional Budget Office study, commissioned by Senator Robert Byrd, stating that the US could only sustain an occupation force of between 67,000 to 106,000 troops.

This plan has one sticking point, that is continued US command of any UN force. One wonders, with the drubbing and abuse of the allies by Bush and Powell at the UN last fall, if the likes of Germany and France will agree to terms.

Just think how much bloodshed and carnage could have been prevented had Bush not rushed to invade. And equally important, that this same carnage could have been prevented had the American public and media stood up to this thug of a pResident!

------
September 3, 2003
Bush Looks to U.N. to Share Burden on Troops in Iraq
By DAVID E. SANGER

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/03/international/middleeast/03PREX.html?th

President Bush agreed today to begin negotiations in the United Nations Security Council to authorize a multinational force for Iraq but insisted that the troops be placed under American command, according to senior administration officials.

Mr. Bush's decision came in a meeting this afternoon with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. While not unexpected, it was a tacit admission that the current American-dominated force is stretched too thin. It also amounts to one of the most significant changes in strategy since the end of major combat in Iraq.

The White House acted just as a new Congressional study showed that the Army lacked the active-duty troops to keep the current occupation force in Iraq past March, without getting extra help from either other services and reserves or from other nations, or without spending tens of billions to vastly expand its size.

One senior official said that Mr. Bush's national security team envisions withdrawing the majority of American forces now in Iraq within 18 months to two years, and "making this peacekeeping operation look like the kind that are familiar to us," in Kosovo, Bosnia and other places where the United Nations has taken the major role.

Snip......

[Booberdawg]

1. I hope doesn't mean this administration

is just freeing up forces to launch an attack on another country - say Syria or Iran.

I guess I guess I just can't read anything anymore about this administration without looking for nefarious motives behind it.

[mhr]

2. My Twisted and Bruised Brain

Has had similar thoughts.

I don't think there is anything they wouldn't try.

However, I do believe that * has painted himself into a corner by overtaxing the military and underfunding the government with tax breaks.

There is only so much the treasury can stand.

[izzie]

4. Well it is time to say that if Clinton was not the ex president.......

this would not have happened. What does that mean? Who knows but he gets blames for every thing. This ex-drunk in WH takes no credit for error. I call him an ex-drunk as more and more he acts like how drunks act.So he may have put the bottle down but now he has his Bible to lean on. Like in 2 and a half years this boy has set us back 100 years.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

6. ex-drunk???....he has replaced alcohol addiction with WAR addiction

i'll take the drunk anyday !

[Booberdawg]

13. I really don't think that matters to these people

I think this administration would STILL overtax the treasury further with another war. They would cut other services - which I think they'd ultimately like to do anyway. (Soc. Sec., Medicare, Education, etc,)

[NJCher]

3. don't give bush an out

Check out this opinion piece by George Monbiot, who makes a substantial case that the UN will not have an experience in Iraq that is any different than that of the US. In fact, to advocate that the UN go in is to just get bush off the hook. There is a solution that Monbiot sees but he doesn't think it will happen that way until the costs become too painful for the U.S.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=268396

Note: be sure to click the corrected link. Also I could not find this piece at the Guardian site; only the Taipei newspaper.


Cher

[booksenkatz]

5. 67K to 106K troops?

I think that's hopeful. After all, we have the highest deficit in our history. In reality, we can't even afford to sustain ONE troop! What the hell would we do if we had a REAL threat for which we REALLY needed troops to defend our country? Iraq sure is one helluva waste of our military, all so a few rich men can get richer. We tried to prevent this folly, but no one listened to us because we're just a focus group. And with no exit strategy, we're so screwed, with or without the UN.

Sorry, not saying anything that hasn't already been said, I just needed to say it anyway.

[MaineDem]

7. But what will France do?

That's still the question.

I firmly believe this administration will weasel out of any responsibility and that's annoying. I'm thinking of all the dead and wounded... I wonder if whistle ass ever does?

[Zhade]

8. Christ on a cracker!

We're spread so damn thin...boys and girls, what we have here is Rome, circa 492 A.D. We are screwed - unless we get these fools out NOW.

We have got to make some noise! Things are going to ramp up tremendously now.

[catmandu57]

9. We broke it -We bought it

Yes these idiots have painted themselves and our once great country into a corner. I don't see anyone coming to our aid until we havfe twisted in the wind for a while, and have taken a few lumps.
If, and it's a big if, the chimp* were to go to the UN in person hat in hand contrite and not full of his self we may get some help. That will happen the same day I jump up and do back flips.

[moondust]

10. Only on the condition of regime change.

In the U.S.

Republicans love this sort of hardball politics!

[dembones]

11. Are the Bushies drunk or stupid?

Ok, here is what the Bushies are telling the world. The UN told us that there was no active WMD program. We called you idiots. We went around you and attacked Saddam, and found no WMD. You are aware of the fact that we are losing the peace, are having soldiers picked off through death or serious injury by the dozen each day. Now, here is the deal we are offering you. Not only do we want you to send troops into the quagmire, we are ordering you to send the troops under our command, and we want you to pay for it too.

Are they serious? High? Drunk? The french are going to say gee... let's send troops there to die, under your command and pay you for the privilidge?

[Beetwasher]

16. Yup, you got!

Good synopsis and welcome to DU!

[Zero Gravitas]

12. Good Luck Dumbass

I don't see that too many countries are going to be willing to sacrfice their own people to give George AWOL Bush a chance to be "re"elected. Iraq is a mess, a mess that US is responsible for and one that we will have to clean up.

The sticking point will be who leads the troops in a potential UN force. The US won't accept foreign leadership, but the only chance the UN has of aucceeding is to be seen to be completely independant of the agressors. IF the US is still running the show, the UN effort will seem to be just another US puppet. Of course thats what Bush fascists want, a puppet but one beefed up with foreign cannon fodder.

My prediction is that the UN (esp. the French) are going to say "nah gonna do it, wouldn't be prudent at this juncture". To be blunt they should (and hopefully will) wait untl after the US elections before deciding what to do. Not because it will hurt Bush* (which it will) but to see what direction the US is going to go: further down the unilateralist imperialist road (in which case the US will de facto be the biggest security threat to the world) or back towards civilized behaivour (in which case it would be in the rest of the world's interest to help us out).

[mhr]

14. One More Possibility

By going back to the UN with hat in hand, Bush has set the stage for a refusal. He can then say to his supporters the world has turned its back on us and we have no choice but to go it alone. This covers his failure and energizes his base at the same time. These people really are warped.

[Snellius]

15. Without the Cold War, Europe has no reason to help the U.S.

Bush has made a fatal miscalculation -- familiar to those who play chess -- of seeing the game only with respect to ones own advantage, blind to the position of ones opponent. In Iraq, for example, they thought they were stategically placing themselves at the geopolitical hub of the Middle East. They never seemed to consider that they were also surrounding themselves in their enemies trap. Similarly with Europe. After the end of the Soviet Union, the Bushies only saw their advantage as the only remaining superpower on earth. They somehow forgot, though, that without the Soviet threat the national interest of our former Europrean allies was no longer to support their American protector but to weaken their American rival.

[grasswire]

17. why bail him out before an election?

Please read the excellent Monbiot editorial that I posted in that forum last night. It has changed my thinking on UN in Iraq.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=9028

[bluedog]

18. oust bush

this is what the UN should say...we will help the US and people of Iraq....when bush is ousted from the WH....we want him where he can no longer cause trouble and expect to be bailed out as in his past adventures!!!!

[Zero Gravitas]

19. yeah!

the illegal dictator, George W. Bush, has 24 hours to leave the country...