Bush Seeks Other Nations' Help in Iraq 1 hour, 39 minutes ago By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush said Monday he is working to persuade more nations to help in Iraq, where Saddam Hussein loyalists are killing coalition forces in a war that persists alongside rebuilding efforts. Speaking at his Texas ranch with the leader of one supportive country, Premier Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, Bush said, "The more people involved in Iraq, the better off we will be." At the same time, he accused the governments of Syria and Iran of harboring terrorists and said terrorism was the greatest obstacle to peace in the region. "This behavior is completely unacceptable," Bush said. "States that support terror will be held accountable." The mention of Syria and Iran by Bush were a way to keep reminding those countries of the need to take strong action against terrorists, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said on Air Force One during the flight back to Washington. "Iran and Syria are continuing to do things that are unhelpful and it is important to continue to make it clear that their actions are unacceptable," McClellan said. "I view it as kind of an ongoing reminder that the actions they are taking are not helpful and they're not acceptable." McClellan said the comments refer to those nations continuing to harbor and support terrorist groups. Berlusconi's visit to the ranch on Sunday and Monday gave Bush a chance to show that not all Europe is cool to his policies, and that trans-Atlantic relations remain strong even though France and Germany didn't back the war effort. "Defending freedom requires cost and sacrifice. The United States is grateful for Italy's willingness to bear the burdens with us," Bush said. For Berlusconi, the current president of the 15-nation European Union, the stay was a reward from Bush for joining with Britain and Spain in support of the war. Berlusconi's support has made him unpopular with Germany and France, and his tendency toward brashness has further muddied his relations with Germany. On only the second day of his six-month term as EU president, he told a German lawmaker in the European Parliament he would recommend him for a role in a movie as a Nazi concentration camp guard. Bush and Berlusconi, both wearing cowboy boots and navy sport coats, talked about stopping the spread of nuclear arms, achieving peace in the Middle East, fighting terror and mending fissures in U.S.-European ties. "We're going to feed him some chicken," Bush said at the end of the brief news conference held in a building near a helicopter landing zone at the ranch. They also talked about soccer and baseball, McClellan said later. The United States is looking to other nations, including those in Europe, to help stabilize Iraq. France, Germany and India have refused a U.S. request to provide troops unless there is a U.N. mandate. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who was at the White House last week, has said that a new resolution under discussion would broaden the current U.N. mandate in Iraq and internationalize the U.S. and British operation. The U.N. Security Council declined to back the U.S.-led war. The White House doesn't think any new mandate is needed. Yet Bush said he had been in close contact with Annan to discuss various ways to involve other nations, even as attacks on U.S. soldiers continue. "This extension of hostility is really a part of the war to liberate Iraq," Bush said. "We're patient. We're strong. We're resolute and we will see this matter through. And obviously, the more help we can get, the more we appreciate it." When asked whether countries that did not participate in the coalition would be able to secure contracts for reconstruction in Iraq, Bush said: "The reconstruction effort shouldn't be viewed as a political exercise. It shouldn't be viewed as an international grab bag."
From Today's Slate: __________________ United Nations in Iraq The only way to save face in Baghdad. By Fred Kaplan Posted Friday, July 18, 2003, at 11:57 AM PT Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Baghdad, said Thursday that he hopes to hold elections next year and that he's asked a U.N. expert to come advise him on how to set up voter registration. While he's at it, he should ask a few more U.N. experts to come advise him how to do peacekeeping. It is becoming increasingly clear that, at some point, the United Nations will have to take over the postwar reconstruction of Iraq. The only question is whether Kofi Annan ends up rushing in on his own terms to fill the gaps of a desperately overwhelmed American occupation force—or whether President Bush comes to his senses, realizes that the task is much harder than his advisers had predicted, and admits that he can't manage it by himself. If he reaches this conclusion in six months or a year, it will look like a mortifying retreat; if he does so much sooner, like now, he might still be able to look courageous and wise. The chance of such a swift switch is remote. Secretary of State Colin Powell, meeting Wednesday with German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, acknowledged that some nations "have expressed the desire for more of a mandate from the United Nations" and added, "I am in conversation with some ministers about this." But Powell is famously out of synch with the rest of this administration on the question of unilateralism versus multilateralism. And, notice, even he owned up to being merely "in conversation" with "some ministers," as opposed, say, to arranging action with pertinent U.N. agencies. The problem is not merely that India has refused to honor Bush's request for 17,000 peacekeeping troops unless the operation is put under U.N. auspices, or that France and Germany made similar refusals (no doubt with barely straight-faced schadenfreude). Nor is it that the "coalition" has failed to muster more than a handful of nations to send more than a few hundred troops on a mission that is straining the powers of 148,000 top-notch American soldiers. These much-noted embarrassments are but symptoms—logical corollaries—of the underlying problem, which is that Bush and his top advisers deluded themselves into presuming, against all historical precedent, that they could rebuild Iraq on their own in the first place. One of the year's saddest official documents is the U.S. Agency for International Development's "Vision for Post-Conflict Iraq," a 13-page internal policy memo, dated Feb. 19, 2003 (leaked a few weeks later to the Wall Street Journal), that, read in retrospect, exposes the administration's full naiveté. In addition to the fine-tuned calculations of what percentage of electricity, water, health care, and other amenities will be restored within a few days, 60 days, and six months after the war ends, the memo contains this poignant decree: "The national government will be limited to assume national functions, such as defense and security, monetary and fiscal matters, justice, foreign affairs, and strategic interests such as oil and gas," while local assemblies will handle all other matters "in an open, transparent and accountable manner." Should we laugh or cry at this noble plan to mate Jefferson with Hamilton on the democratic breeding grounds of the New Mesopotamia? The remarkable thing about the passage is that not a single noun or adjective turns out to have any bearing on the current reality. "National government," "defense," "security," "fiscal matters," "justice," "foreign affairs"—these concepts simply don't exist. Another presumption going into the war was that, by this time, U.S. troop levels in Iraq would have been cut to 50,000. (The fighting would be over, and President Chalabi's militia fighters, transformed into the new Iraqi army, would have mopped up the remaining pockets of resistance.) This notion underlay the Pentagon's initial forecast that the monthly cost of occupation would now be $2 billion instead of, as it turns out, $3.9 billion. The assumptions of America's postwar policy have crumbled, so it should be no surprise that the policy is on the verge of crumbling, too. Leaving is not a real option; it would be a hideous thing—politically, strategically, and morally—to wreck a nation, install an interim "governing council," then split. But staying, at least under the current arrangement, isn't much of an option either. We can't afford its price, in money or lives. The longer the United States remains the dominant face of armed authority, the more the Iraqis will associate us with the continuing chaos, and thus the greater the chance that, once they do form their own government, anti-Americanism will be the thickest of threads that hold it together. A group of think-tank chiefs recently toured Iraq at the request of Bremer and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Their report, released yesterday, found that, while "the United States needs to be prepared to stay the course in Iraq for several years," it is in no shape to do so. The administrative authority in Baghdad "lacks the personnel, money and flexibility to be fully effective," and its officials are, by their own admission, "isolated and cut off from Iraqis." Therefore, the report concludes, the United States "should reach out broadly to other countries," not only "to fill its staffing needs," but to form "a new coalition that involves various international actors, including from countries and organizations that took no part in the original war coalition." Though the report doesn't venture into this realm, Bush will have to take some painful steps. The United States can no longer run the show; it's time to start sharing the decision-making powers. The United Nations seems the most logical forum, since it has experience with peacekeeping and postwar reconstruction; but if this medicine is too bitter, then a U.N. mandate and teams of advisers for some makeshift "new coalition"—perhaps involving members of NATO and the Arab League—is conceivable. Yet other countries—substantial countries with large armies and hard currency—will only send troops if Bush gives them incentives to do so. Surely he and Dick Cheney, proud capitalists both, understand the role of capital in international relations. All the contracts for Iraqi development cannot keep going to Bechtel and Halliburton. German, Russian, and yes, even French firms must get a piece of the action. (French officials have been blatant about this aspect of their requirements, but that doesn't make satisfying them any less necessary.) It will not be pleasant to let the French profit while the House cafeteria still has freedom fries on its menu. But to refuse them a share of postwar revenue in exchange for sharing postwar risks would not only doom our own interests in the region, it would also convince conspiracy theorists everywhere—those who think Bush went to war for oil, contracts, and the pursuit of global conquest—that their cynicism was justified.
Too little, too late. It was America's war, and now it's America's occupation. If Dubya didn't want it to turn out this way, perhaps he should have spent more time building a true coalition prior to invading Iraq. $6 billion a month, and at least one dead American soldier a day. Thanks, Mr. pResident.
I don't understand your posts, mc and rocketman tex. i mean, i understand you really don't like the current president...but i thought you guys would think this is a good idea, whether late or not. mc mark -- you made your bed, so now you can't reconsider and your troops have to remain targets? or your troops are forced to just pick up and leave iraq in chaos? the most flexible component in any system is generally the most valuable one. flexibility is a good thing. i would be more concerned if the president's ego prevented him from ever asking for help. these other countries have been chomping at the bit of being involved with rebuilding Iraq since the opening shots of the war.
It is a good idea. It's way too late. And, after the way this Administration has bashed "Old Europe", I think they had better start their search for additional coalition partners in "New Asia". After all the back-and-forth, I doubt that France and Germany would want to participate, like they have in Afghanistan, and that is a shame.
No max I was being flippant. It breaks my heart to see our troops being picked off one by one and kept in the dark about how long they will be there and what the end game is. This administration's attitude of hubris is so strong that Bush would rather cut off his right arm than swallow his pride and go back to the UN for help. But of course, he will. But not because of "reconsideration" for the well being of the troops. He'll only go to the UN to save his political skin. And to deflect criticism of his decisions about the "noble" experiment of preemption.
In all honesty, you guys just despise this president. Nothing he could do would be right in your eyes. This is similar to the Republicans who acted the very same way about Clinton, even when he did something philosophically in step with their viewpoints.
Max I have never hidden my feelings about Bush. However, you’re wrong about your Clinton analogy. Democrats haven't spent Bush's entire term spending millions of dollars and calling for dozens of never ending inquiries about his personal life. Where's the democratic version of Ken Star?
I hope the UN does take over. The job would have been made easier had Bush worked through the UN beforehand. But our troops who have done all the fighting so far really need to be rotated out of Iraq ASAP. Also It might help the Iraqis feel a little less like it's an American Empire type move.(I'm not saying it is that kind of a thing, just that it will help Iraqis feel it's not). My issue in this is more with the people on the board who scorned the UN early in the process, and boasted how the U.S. didn't need any help and all that kind of talk. Now that same 'irrelevant' UN may be the very thing that gives our troops the reinforcements they so badly need. That 'irrelevant' UN is already giving advice on voter registration for the Iraqis, and is an important tool in a democratic Iraq.
You know what the sad thing about this whole situation is? Either way, we will have to transport more troops over there, be they ours or from an international peace-keeping force. Most nations lack the sealift and airlift capabilities to send large numbers of troops across global distances. I just don't see the UN as the group for the job. Their incompetence and corruption precludes even a thought of suggesting we seek their assistance. We are, whether Bush likes it or not, going to have to do this on our own. And frankly, I'd prefer it that way.
there doesn't have to be a formal proceeding for the general democrat public to despise the man. if bush were caught lying under oath, he'd get the exact same treatment clinton got. the bottom line is, no matter what he does, some of you will find a reason to dislike him for it...even if it's somewhat in step with something you would agree with. i saw the same happen with clinton.
gulity as charged Max. But now I'm supposed to like the man because he will have to do something he should have done all along?
Max... I can understand your position, re: people saying 'you made your bed." even while I can understand theirs...I don't necessarily think that their position is merely one of hatred towards Bush. You know I didn't have negative feelings towards Bush before all this, and I would like egos to be shelved here for the sake of the human lives we need to save, but I also understand the sense that, if we suddenly kick in and say yeay UN, etc. it's rubber stamping what Bush did. The biggest problem I had with the US's position to scornfully dismiss the UN as irrelevent, and do what it wanted when it wanted where it wanted anyways, from an American point of view, was the sheer self-serving convenience of the timing of such an action. Had we raised the ( some credible) complaints about the way the UN works at anytime during all the years it was with us on virtually anything, or at least didn't oppose us...had we voiced our problems with the UNSC veto at any time during the period when we used it more than anyone, and used it more than anyone in terms of being the only opposition...had we agreed with Kruschev when he called the UN irelevent...had we not been the nation to tell others that they must abide by the global will as represented in the UN...had we not been the primary architects of the UN's code of definable military actions, and held other nations to that code...had it not been that the first time the UN did it's job, reflected global will and disagreed with us that we suddenly dismiss it as irrelevent, confirming Krushev's statement from 40 years ago, wherein he called the UN our puppet, and said we would get rid of it as soon as it tried to cut it's strings...then maybe I would have more sympathy for our position. So now that it would appear that we are, having done what we wanted when we wanted where we wanted suddenly realizing that globla support might indeed be usefull, if not necessary...I have sympathy with htise who see this as a diplomatic equivalent of " It's easier to ask for forgivness than to beg for permission."
Of course, the investigation began years and millions upon millions of dollars were spent before Clinton was caught lying under oath.
no...not at all...but just be honest about your feelings about it, as you ultimately were here. ultimately, there's nothing the guy could do to make you like him or think he's a good president. nothing. macbeth -- i'd read your entire post, but we already have an admission.
fair point...but it doesn't change at all my position that there are some who feel so negatively about the president that even when he does things they would otherwise agree with, they can't see the "good" in it. or they can't bring themselves to align with him in a position they would ordinarily support.
Max this is not true. Be more in tune to environmental issues Curtail corporate corruption Emphasise better education reform Pay down the debt There is a myriad of things he could do to change my mind. But this is really for another thread. and I really should be getting some work done.
mc mark -- i'm confused here's what I posted: the bottom line is, no matter what he does, some of you will find a reason to dislike him for it...even if it's somewhat in step with something you would agree with. i saw the same happen with clinton. and here's how you responded: gulity as charged Max. now you're saying that's not true. which is it? (sorry...this is just too much like different answers from deposition testimony to oral testimony at a hearing...way too much fun for me to pass up on!)
