If troop surge fails, strategy is to involve other nations under UN umbrella Simon Tisdall Wednesday May 23, 2007 The Guardian The Bush administration is developing plans to "internationalise" the Iraq crisis, including an expanded role for the United Nations, as a way of reducing overall US responsibility for Iraq's future and limiting domestic political fallout from the war as the 2008 election season approaches. The move comes amid rising concern in Washington that President George Bush's controversial Baghdad security surge, led by the US commander, General David Petraeus, is not working and that Iran is winning the clandestine battle for control of Iraq. "Petraeus is brilliant. But he is the captain of a sinking ship," said a former senior administration official who questioned whether Iraq's divided political leadership could prevent a descent into chaos. "Iraq's government is a mobile phone number that doesn't answer. Iraq probably can't be fixed." Although sectarian killings have fallen in Baghdad since the surge began in February, the level of violence across the country remains broadly unchanged. But the White House is fiercely resisting calls from Democrats and some Republicans to scrap the operation and set a timetable for a troop withdrawal. The former official, who is familiar with administration thinking, predicted Mr Bush would instead ask Congress to agree a six-month extension of the surge after Gen Petraeus presented his "progress report" in early September. While insisting that no decision had yet been taken on an extension, the Pentagon announced last week that 35,000 soldiers from 10 army brigades had been told they could expect to be deployed to Iraq by the end of the year. That would enable the US to maintain heightened troop levels of about 160,000 soldiers through to next spring. According to an analysis published by Hearst Newspapers yesterday, the number of combat troops could almost double - to 98,000 - by the end of the year if arriving and departing combat brigades overlap. By the same calculation, the overall total including support troops could top 200,000 - an increase the report said amounted to a "second surge". Mr Bush will sweeten the pill by pursuing a series of steps intended to "hand off" many current US responsibilities to the international community, the former official said. The president would try simultaneously to placate congressional and public opinion by indicating willingness to talk about a future troop "drawdown". The US plan is expected to call for: · Expanded UN involvement in overseeing Iraq's full transition to a "normal" democratic state, including an enhanced role for UN humanitarian agencies, the creation of a UN command, and possibly a Muslim-led peacekeeping force · Increased involvement in Iraq policymaking of UN security council permanent members, Japan and EU countries - in particular, the new conservative government of French president Nicolas Sarkozy · A bigger support role for regional countries, notably Sunni Arab Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, and international institutions such as the World Bank and IMF · Renewed efforts to promote Iraqi government self-reliance, including attainment of national reconciliation "benchmarks" · The accelerated removal of US troops from frontline combat duties as the handover to Iraqi security forces, backed by an increased number of US advisers, proceeds. "The administration's plan calls for moving on several fronts," the former official said. "Firstly, there is the international plan to win political, economic and military support for the Iraqi government and state, not least by going to the UN and asking for a UN command and flag to supplant the US coalition command. "Regionally, there is diplomacy aimed at mobilising more Arab neighbours to understand that there is no Sunni leader coming back to Baghdad and that countries like Saudi Arabia should support Maliki [Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq's Shia prime minister] before he has no choice but to fully align with Iran," the official said. "Internally, the plan is for US forces to help isolate takfirists (fundamentalist Salafi jihadis), peel off Sunnis from the insurgency, contain hardcore elements of Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army, and halt Iranian and trans-Syrian infiltration of troops and materiel." If all else failed, the US might seek an arrangement with Mr Sadr, if only to secure an orderly transition, the official claimed. "Cutting a deal with the Mahdi army is [vice-president] Dick Cheney's deep fallback option." Four years after bypassing a hostile security council, the Bush administration is expected to take the Iraq question back to the UN at the annual opening of the general assembly in September. "We foresee a very significant role for the UN and its agencies. The UN has great expertise that is badly needed in Iraq," a senior US diplomat said at the weekend. The World Bank and IMF would also be asked to do more, he said. Washington's UN move may receive a more sympathetic hearing now that Kofi Annan, a stern critic of the Iraq invasion, has retired as secretary-general, diplomats say. His successor, Ban Ki-moon, owes his job to US backing and may prove more accommodating. Zalmay Khalilzad, the former ambassador to Baghdad who is now Washington's envoy at the UN, is expected to play a key role. The Bush administration is already exploring other avenues to build international support. With Tony Blair out of the picture and uncertainty surrounding Gordon Brown's intentions, Washington is said to be looking to Mr Sarkozy's new government in Paris for diplomatic and other assistance. A senior French diplomat was non-committal, saying only that it was "logical" that the US should seek French help to "rescue itself". http://www.rawstory.com/showoutarti....guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2085981,00.html
Ironic that Bush-Cheny must ask France and the UN to help them out of the Administration's Iraqi quagmire-- a war that the UN and France tried to prevent.
They tried this before and everybody basically said, "You created the problem. Fix it yourself." I don't see why it would be different now. I think there is ample demand for schadenfreude around the world at seeing the US fall on its face.
Even if Bill got down on his knees for Hillary, no one wants to send troops to an unpopular meat grinder without a light down the tunnel. The same reasons why our critics faulted the UN are also why it's unlikely going to take up this mess off our hands for free.
That was their response under the terms then proposed. Lot's has changed. The mere passage of time and new chairman are pretty significant. And the changes in congress...pressure from GOP members...George's pending farewell and more...may mean a better chance at resolution. Everyone wants this 'fixed.' Won't be easy...but this is a good step.
Like I've said for the past few years, the biggest blunder was not in starting the war, but not opening reconstruction contract internationally but just handing it to Haliburton on a silver platter. When we first "won" the war, other countries wanted in, and Bush promptly said that the reconstruction will only go to the allies of the U.S. during the war. If U.S. wants international support, the first thing they gotta do is sweeten the pot for foreign countries, possibly France (who I do believe had some side deals for oils with Sadam, which is why they were against it so strongly) and maybe China (I think they have the man power, the desire for some middle east influence and international prestige, and who doesn't like oil). This international politics, and you gotta learn to compromise, lets hope Bush can get' er done.
The biggest mistake was starting the stupid immoral war. Could the stupidity have been done better? Possibly, but doomed from the start. I know you could have a lot of "what ifs" and theorize a happy nice war, but it is not realistic given the actual state of Iraq, the Middle East and the way folks reacts to foreign invaders even if from the USA.
Handing the reins to the UN right after the toppling of Saddam would've given legitimacy and purpose to this invasion. It would've been the catalyst towards mending the diplomatic rift between the US and the world even if popular dissent persisted. Plus, the Iraqis wouldn't be as hostile to the peacekeepers, who weren't responsible for the looting and sacking of cultural and physical wealth that took place when there weren't enough troops during invasion. Everyone also assumed Saddam had WMDs around then.
As other posters have noted the Admin. gave a big FU to the UN and much of the international community earlier so its no surprise that many feel schaudenfraude about the US now. The arrogance and shortsightedness of this Admin. has come back again to bite us on the @ss and I believe its too late now to patch up relations. To toot my own horn I posted something along these lines two years ago http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=105677&highlight=solution+iraq I believe the only way that this Admin. could hope to get UN help is to come out and publically admit the invasion was a mistake. GW Bush will never do that. So while I think bringing the UN is likely the best solution its not going to happen while GW Bush is still in office.
None of our allies past or present wants to see the US fall on its face, though you could hardly blame them for wanting to see Bush fall on his face. If Kerry had been elected, the UN would be involved now. If a Democrat (or even a Republican who is less blatantly offensive to our allies) is elected in 08, they will almost surely become involved then. Telling them it's everybody's problem and that we all need to band together and support Bush's continued, failed policies is a lot like DaDakota starting a "can't we all just get along" thread after JVG was fired.
Wait, Batman, you seem like a level headed guy. Surely you must join me and othe knowledgeable fans in rejoicing at JVG leaving the team?
Hell's no. You and DonkeyMagic are polar proofs positive that one can be right on the money about one thing and positively lost on another.
DonkeyMagic!!!! Batman, you are trying to bait me. Fortunately I have made another vow to be moderate in the tone of my posts. I should report you for injecting basketball into the D and D,where we are generally civil compared to the GARM. However, given that I'm going on vacation to Mexico in two days, I think I'll duck my responsibility and just try to get through work tomorrow.
Iraq became insolvable 5 years ago. No one. Not Bush, Not Kerry, not the U.N. can do anything about the situation in Iraq now. 5 years too late. Iraq is a quagmire. It may be decades before things end. More likely then not, Iraq is a second Afganistan.
Well I think a good governments are amoral, with the priority number one of a government is for it's citizen's immediate welfare. I don't think going into Iraq, killing Sadam, and set up some sort of presence in the middle east, if successful, is necessary an immoral thing. The entire excecution of the act though, is one of the most mismanaged acts I have ever seen.
Sounds sort of fine in the abstract. When you think about how wars tend to take on a course of their own and as we have now, we may have literally a couple of million de3ad Iraqis and we already have in excess of 2 million exiles, you have to error on the side of life and human suffering, not sort of wishful thinking. There is a reason the vgast majority of the world's people, thinkers, whether stateman, religious leaders, Bush I's people etc were opposed to the war. They have been proven correct, though one can serenely theorize the POSSIBILITY of a nice outcome.
