[Q]We?re utterly surprised,? a senior U.N. diplomat told me. ?We thought that after the war, the United States would try to dump Iraq on the world?s lap and the rest of the world would object, saying, ?This is your mess, you clean it up.? The opposite is happening. The rest of the world is saying, ?We?re willing to help,? but Washington is determined to run Iraq itself.? And what are we getting for this privilege? The vast majority of the costs, for starters.
MOST ESTIMATES SUGGEST that Iraq is now costing U.S. taxpayers $4 billion a month.[/Q]
If this is a UN Operation, why are we fitting a majority of the costs? If all of these resolutions clearly make this an operation of the UN, where is the UN $$$.
[Q]The solution is obvious: internationalize the occupation. The Pentagon claims it already is?by getting troops from various Coalition partners. Here is what that means: Britain, Poland and maybe India will each lead a division. But few countries have active, well-trained troops in the numbers needed. So the British division will include troops from seven countries, sometimes just a few hundred. (The Czech contribution is 650.) The Polish division will have only 2,300 Polish troops, the rest coming from Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Hungary. Even so, the division will be a small one, about 9,000 (as opposed to 15,000, which is more the norm). I?m not a military expert, but can this work as a fighting force?[/Q]
Wow, I wonder where we have heard this before????? Clearly our "coalition allies" are not able to give us more support. Where could we get this support?
[Q]There is one group of nations with large numbers of well-trained troops, experienced in peacekeeping and in working with the United States Army. It?s called NATO. The problem for the Bush administration is that calling on NATO means bringing France and Germany back into the fold. My suggestion: get over it. Even for NATO countries, sending large numbers of troops is not going to be easy. Besides, without NATO at the core, the Coalition of Iraq forces will be constantly changing, an ad hoc group with no experience working together.
But we will still need more troops. In order to get other countries?perhaps Muslim countries?to participate, Washington should give the United Nations a more central role. (Alternatively, create a multinational body specifically for the reconstruction of Iraq, blessed by the United Nations, with many foreign faces.) In virtually every negotiation the administration has had for more troops, countries have expressed a strong preference to be part of a U.N. mission rather than a U.S. mission.In India right now, the government is keen to send a division to northern Iraq, but it knows that it will pay a political price without U.N. cover.[/Q]
Wait a minute, ask Nato????? Get more Arab support????? Make this a UN Operation? I thought this was a UN operation? AM I missing something? Nations are still not willing to send troops because it is NOT a UN Operation?
[Q]The European Union and Japan, the two donors with big aid budgets, are far more likely to put large sums of money into a U.N. operation than a U.S. occupation. [/Q]
I must be missing something. Didn't Resolution 1483 make it a legitimate UN Operation? WHat are these other nations thinking? Maybe they read Resolution 1483 as an acknowledgement that it makes the US an Occupying force, and the only form of governement in charge there. If they are still not willing to send money to help IT MUST NOT BE A UN OPERATION IN IRAQ.
[Q]Today the United States gets to decide which Shiite leader will be mayor of Najaf?thereby annoying 100 other contenders. Meanwhile the United Nations distributes food, water and medicine. Why is this such a great deal for America? Why not mix it up so that the political decisions are made by an international group? And why not have the United States more involved in relief work?[/Q]
Because its my way or the highway maybe?
[Q]From the start, internationalizing the Iraq operation has seemed such an obvious solution. But the Bush administration has not adopted it because it holds a whole series of prejudices about the United Nations, nation-building, the French, the Germans and multilateral organizations. In clinging on to ideological fixations, the administration is risking its most important foreign-policy project.[/Q]
This is why we are OCCUPIERS as opposed to a group that is WORKING through the UN.
Peacehttp://www.msnbc.com/news/935250.asp
MOST ESTIMATES SUGGEST that Iraq is now costing U.S. taxpayers $4 billion a month.[/Q]
If this is a UN Operation, why are we fitting a majority of the costs? If all of these resolutions clearly make this an operation of the UN, where is the UN $$$.
[Q]The solution is obvious: internationalize the occupation. The Pentagon claims it already is?by getting troops from various Coalition partners. Here is what that means: Britain, Poland and maybe India will each lead a division. But few countries have active, well-trained troops in the numbers needed. So the British division will include troops from seven countries, sometimes just a few hundred. (The Czech contribution is 650.) The Polish division will have only 2,300 Polish troops, the rest coming from Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Hungary. Even so, the division will be a small one, about 9,000 (as opposed to 15,000, which is more the norm). I?m not a military expert, but can this work as a fighting force?[/Q]
Wow, I wonder where we have heard this before????? Clearly our "coalition allies" are not able to give us more support. Where could we get this support?
[Q]There is one group of nations with large numbers of well-trained troops, experienced in peacekeeping and in working with the United States Army. It?s called NATO. The problem for the Bush administration is that calling on NATO means bringing France and Germany back into the fold. My suggestion: get over it. Even for NATO countries, sending large numbers of troops is not going to be easy. Besides, without NATO at the core, the Coalition of Iraq forces will be constantly changing, an ad hoc group with no experience working together.
But we will still need more troops. In order to get other countries?perhaps Muslim countries?to participate, Washington should give the United Nations a more central role. (Alternatively, create a multinational body specifically for the reconstruction of Iraq, blessed by the United Nations, with many foreign faces.) In virtually every negotiation the administration has had for more troops, countries have expressed a strong preference to be part of a U.N. mission rather than a U.S. mission.In India right now, the government is keen to send a division to northern Iraq, but it knows that it will pay a political price without U.N. cover.[/Q]
Wait a minute, ask Nato????? Get more Arab support????? Make this a UN Operation? I thought this was a UN operation? AM I missing something? Nations are still not willing to send troops because it is NOT a UN Operation?
[Q]The European Union and Japan, the two donors with big aid budgets, are far more likely to put large sums of money into a U.N. operation than a U.S. occupation. [/Q]
I must be missing something. Didn't Resolution 1483 make it a legitimate UN Operation? WHat are these other nations thinking? Maybe they read Resolution 1483 as an acknowledgement that it makes the US an Occupying force, and the only form of governement in charge there. If they are still not willing to send money to help IT MUST NOT BE A UN OPERATION IN IRAQ.
[Q]Today the United States gets to decide which Shiite leader will be mayor of Najaf?thereby annoying 100 other contenders. Meanwhile the United Nations distributes food, water and medicine. Why is this such a great deal for America? Why not mix it up so that the political decisions are made by an international group? And why not have the United States more involved in relief work?[/Q]
Because its my way or the highway maybe?
[Q]From the start, internationalizing the Iraq operation has seemed such an obvious solution. But the Bush administration has not adopted it because it holds a whole series of prejudices about the United Nations, nation-building, the French, the Germans and multilateral organizations. In clinging on to ideological fixations, the administration is risking its most important foreign-policy project.[/Q]
This is why we are OCCUPIERS as opposed to a group that is WORKING through the UN.
Peacehttp://www.msnbc.com/news/935250.asp