This just in... <i>Britain Backing Out? CBS News (CBS)_Sources tell CBS News that Great Britain – America's closest ally – may find it politically impossible to commit its military to a U.S.-led attack on Saddam Hussein. And that could force the United States to go it alone in Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld hinted as much Tuesday. "To the extent that they are able to participate that would obviously be welcomed. To the extent they are not, well, there are workarounds," Rumsfeld said. War in Iraq is now supported by fewer than 20 percent of Britons, and Prime Minister Tony Blair has told Washington he needs U.N. authorization, reports CBS News Correspondent Bill Plante. So Britain is now talking about a new amendment to the draft resolution in the Security Council that would extend the March 17 deadline by as much as another ten days and would include strictly defined disarmament benchmarks – something the U.S. has opposed in the past. "The United Kingdom is in a negotiation and it's prepared to look at timelines and tests together," Britain's U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock said. "But I'm pretty sure we're talking about action in March, don't look beyond March." The White House said it didn't object to the tests, but made it clear that the time is limited. "What the president has said is that there is room for a little more diplomacy, but not a lot of time to do it. The vote will take place this week," said press secretary Ari Fleischer. The Bush administration had talked of a vote as early as Tuesday, but with France and Russia threatening to veto the current draft resolution, and without the minimum nine "yes" votes, it held up action in the council. Diplomats from six council nations considered swing votes – Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan – proposed Tuesday that Saddam be given 45 days to meet benchmarks and demonstrate that Iraq is disarming. But that appeared out of the question for the United States and Britain. "It's not going anywhere, there's only one resolution on the table," one U.S. official said. Under the proposed British amendment, Saddam would have 10 days to prove Iraq has taken a "strategic decision" to disarm, which could be done with a series of tests or "benchmarks," council diplomats said. If Iraq makes that decision, a second phase would begin with more time to verify Iraq's full disarmament, the diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Reacting to the possible British compromise, French diplomats said the resolution would still mean authorizing war, which France is unwilling to do. However, the French Foreign Ministry in Paris indicated it was open to new ideas. "It's a new development and the future will tell us if it is a significant development," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Francois Rivasseau. "We've indicated we are open to dialogue." Nonetheless, he stressed that the "red line" set out by France cannot be crossed: "We want no ultimatum. We want no element of automaticity. And we've said we want what the inspectors say taken into account." Russia's U.N. Ambassador Sergey Lavrov was equally adamant. "We see no reason whatsoever to interrupt the inspections and any resolution which contains ultimatums and which contains automaticity for the use of force is not acceptable to us," he said. The U.S. has the support of Britain, Spain and Bulgaria, with Cameroon and Mexico reportedly leaning toward the U.S. position. But with Germany, Syria and Pakistan preparing abstentions or "no" votes, Washington is trying to appeal to Chile, Angola and Guinea. While the diplomats debate a war with Iraq, the Pentagon pressed ahead with final preparations for waging war. On Tuesday, a new weapon was added to the mix: the biggest conventional bomb ever dropped from an airplane. It is officially designated the Massive Ordnance Air Blast, or MOAB, although it has come to be called unofficially the Mother of All Bombs, a rough allusion to Saddam Hussein's claim before the 1991 Gulf War that that conflict would be the "mother of all battles." The Pentagon's newest and biggest weapon had to be tested before it can be used in combat. And at 21,000 pounds it promised to cause such a massive detonation that residents around the Florida bombing range had to be warned in advance. The speed with which the Pentagon released video of the test was clearly intended as a warning to the Iraqi military of what they might face if it comes to war, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin. "The goal is to have the capabilities of the coalition so clear and so obvious that there's an enormous disincentive for the Iraqi military to fight," Rumsfeld said. U.S. officials say there are already secret surrender negotiations underway with the commanders of some Iraqi military units. Rumsfeld says that before the shooting starts all Iraqi units will be given one last chance to give up. "They will receive instructions so that they can behave in a way that will be seen and understood as being non-threatening and they will not be considered combatants," Rumsfeld said. What effect Tuesday's bomb test will have on the Iraqi will to fight remains to be seen, but the sight of a bomb so powerful that a parachute is needed to slow its descent and give the plane which dropped it time to get away from the blast can only demoralize Iraqi troops. It might also convince them to take shelter in the cities since the U.S. could never use a weapon that powerful anywhere near civilians. </i>
I think we all know the answer to that question. Get to the back of the bus with Guam and Puerto Rico.
If this turns out to be true I will officially protest these Limeys and their 'free will' by never using English again...Anyone wanna join me in coming up with a new language? My working name for it is Yytuf which means "freedom'...in yytuf...
You guys are just demonstrating how good our congressman are on petty and unimportant stuff and bad at the important things. So now it's just 300000 U.S. troops and 2000 Australian troops against the muslims, I mean Saddam Hussein. It's not unilateral, yet...
Democracy is a terrible thing. Pffff, public opinion We should take the fight to the UK and put the Royal family back in charge. Monarchs are easier to deal with.
What we may very well do is spare the 30,000+ UK troops already in theatre the trouble of actually pushing the front line from the Kuwaiti-Iraqi border to Basra. They will still participate, though. Here's the situation: Tony Blair is in a world of sh*t politically. His political career (domestically, for the crown) is probably dead after this. But we may still be able to preserve a semblance of a career for him (we owe him that at the least) and at the same time both keep British military assistance in an Iraq war and give the British public the sense that democracy was served. We can do this by relieving the Brit force already there from the burden of taking Basra, and have them support us in other, less-offensive ways. The Marines are poised to take Basra anyway, so we won't lose much... Then the Brits would be in a good position to provide peacekeeping forces in the aftermath - which is what we would really want other non-US forces for most anyway. The Brits already have over 30,000 troops there. Most combat troops (good for peacekeeping). They will take part in the offensive; Bush might see fit to give them a less-visible part, though, just to spare Blair a political hari-kari. The Brits are after all - just like any other allied nation would be in this situation - there more for moral support than anything else (yes, I see the irony). Giving them a support role instead of a front-line combat role may take some pressure off their government while still providing a real force multiplication element. As for the Aussies, all that I have heard about them sending is SF/airborne troops (not that they aren't welcome - those guys are awesome). They may be sending more, but I haven't noticed it... Whatever the ostensible role for them, they will fight, as will the Brit SF (SAS and SBS).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2842353.stm UK plays down US rift UK Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has sought to dispel speculation that American troops might go to war with Iraq without British involvement. On Tuesday US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sparked diplomatic confusion by suggesting the US had alternative plans if there was no second UN resolution and the UK decided not to go to war with Iraq. The remarks - later retracted - caused shock and surprise in Downing Street, which chose to focus on continuing efforts to secure a new United Nations resolution. Mr Hoon told the BBC on Wednesday morning that Mr Rumsfeld had been referring to a "theoretical possibility" that British troops might not be involved. He added: "He has every reason to believe there will be a significant military contribution from the UK." Mr Hoon also suggested that there might not need to be a second United Nations resolution to give the go ahead for war. Asked if the existing resolution 1441 could in itself provide the authority to go to war, he said: "Certainly it is possible to read 1441 in that way". Rebel Labour backbenchers seized on Mr Rumsfeld's remarks and are expected to urge Tony Blair at House of Commons question time on Wednesday to withdraw British military involvement. The diplomatic flurry came as the prime minister said he was willing to work "night and day" to secure enough common ground among UN security council members for agreement on a new resolution. Mr Rumsfeld told reporters the UK's role was "unclear" because of Tony Blair's difficulties in convincing a rebellious Parliament of the need for military action. Asked if he meant the US would go to war without its closest ally, he added: "That is an issue that the president will be addressing in the days ahead, one would assume." A Downing Street spokeswoman insisted: "This has not changed anything. We are still working to get a second resolution. We are not at this stage (war) yet. "But there has been complete cooperation throughout between the United Kingdom and United States on the military planning." Within the hour, Mr Rumsfeld tried to clarify his comments with a statement saying he had "no doubt" in "a significant military contribution from the United Kingdom." But Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell told BBC's Newsnight that Mr Rumsfeld's comments appeared to "devalue Britain's military contribution and hence its political influence". Labour MP Graham Allen said: "The cat is out of the bag. They can do it without us and give Tony Blair the chance to get out of the hole if he wishes." The prime minister's frantic international negotiations continue on Wednesday at dinner with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder at Downing Street. After talks with the Portuguese and Romanian prime ministers on Tuesday, Mr Blair warned that Saddam Hussein will be "let off the hook" if France or Russia uses a veto over a further UN resolution. UK diplomats at the UN have proposed a series of tests they say Baghdad should fulfil within a set time to prove that it is ready to hand over its weapons. The proposals are part of an attempt to win wider support for a new UN resolution that gives the Iraqi leader a deadline to disarm before war. Mr Blair hopes the plan will break the UN deadlock and ease mounting political pressure at home following an attack on his strategy by Clare Short, the international development secretary. On Tuesday, six undecided UN members - Cameroon, Angola, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan - suggested a 45-day deadline for Iraq to disarm. But this was rejected by America, which is insisting that a UN vote on war against Iraq will happen this week. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Defence has denied claims by the Public Accounts Committee that it has not learned enough from mistakes made during a large desert exercise in Oman two years ago. More than 20,000 troops were put through their paces amid criticism about the equipment used.
Hey accordind to "Hardball" with Chris Matthews, Bulgaria is supplying 50 troops. Actually the story seems to have been a bit overblown, and Britain is still in, but as the pressure mounts on Tony Blair, who knows. It is tough to go against a 80% supermajority for long as we saw in Turkey. That is why our staunchest allies in the end may be dictatorships like Qatar and Kuwait that can go against such majorities. I am ignoring Israel, the only country other than our own where a majority seems to back the war, as for political purposes their involvement must remain at a distance. **************************** **************************** COMMENTARY U.S. Finds Allies in Repressive Arab Regimes Only systems that are authoritarian can force the peoples of the Middle East to swallow an attack on Iraq. By Shibley Telhami, Shibley Telhami is a professor at the University of Maryland, senior fellow at the Saban Center of the Brookings Institution and author of "The Stakes: America and the Middle East" (Westview Press, 20 Within days of President Bush's speech articulating a vision of democracy in the Middle East after a war with Iraq, a sobering reality set in. The powerful security forces of the authoritarian government in Pakistan delivered the most important catch to date in the war on Al Qaeda: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the possible mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. They were able to do it because Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has put everything on the line to back the U.S. war on Al Qaeda -- even though it means challenging the passions of significant portions of his public. Similarly, in the Arab world, most authoritarian governments, whose populations are overwhelmingly opposed to such a war, have decided to cooperate with the American effort anyway. And it is the very absence of democracy that has enabled these authoritarian governments to respond to Washington's unpopular requests. In contrast, Turkey -- the one Muslim democracy in the Middle East, a member of NATO and usually a staunch American ally, a country offered billions of dollars in American aid to say yes -- said no to American forces on its soil. dictatorial Arab allies
I thought Qatar was one of the most, if not the most, liberal Islamic states. I know the population votes, including women...
The guy will simply not shut up. The fact that Bush will not publically slap him down for this and some of his other statements says volumes about the Administration... and it's not good reading. I thought Rumsfeld was a bit of fresh air at first. Someone who was straight forward and didn't speak using a bunch of Pentagon mumbo-jumbo, but he's gone round the bend with his ego. If I were Blair, I would have the phone line white-hot with a demand for his resignation. It's not enough for Rumsfeld to stupidly damage our relationship with most of Europe... he's got to stab our closest ally in the back as well. Colin Powell, are you out there somewhere? Do you have a backbone? Are you willing to be marginalized and humiliated without standing up? Do people like me, who thought you were one of the few voices of reason and moderation in this Administration, have it wrong? Are you the Secretary of State or not! Say something. Anything. How about- " Mr. Rumsfeld sometimes forgets that he is Secretary of Defense, not Secretary of State. It's time for him to concentrate on the job he has. The other one is taken." This has gone on long enough.
I thought Qatar was one of the most, if not the most, liberal Islamic states. I know the population votes, including women... You are somewhat right. They have ad advisory council that women can run for. ********************* ********************* .............. Qatari women work, drive, and vote. The emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, allowed elections for a municipal advisory council in 1999 and is reviewing the draft of a new Constitution that should pave the way to an elected parliament in a few years. "You have, at the top, a person who actually believes in these reforms" says Mr. Ansari, referring to Sheikh Hamad. "There is no pressure on him to produce all this stuff." Khalid al-Khater, a retired engineer and self-described "concerned citizen" who writes newspaper columns, says the government is under pressure to reform in order to keep pace with a modernizing world. But, he adds, "There is no democracy here. All the action the government has taken is for outside consumption." Even Ansari acknowledges, "It will make our relationship much easier with the US if we continue to have these reforms." Mr. Khater says the government has refused to sanction various "civil society" groups with which he has been involved: an association of engineers and groups concerned with the environment, consumer protection, and the rights of Palestinians. Although a law allows such groups, Khater says the government forbids them because they "come too close to being political." ................ democracy in Qatar
Just got off the phone with my British Pals, for many of you who don't know. I sold my company to a British company last month. They say that the polls are a bit out of wack, that 70% support the war if we get a UN resolution to go to war, regardless of a veto or not. Today, in response to Rumsfield, the British government is all up in arms saying....NO NO NO...we are going to go to war if America goes. So.....who knows. DD
