[Q]U.S. abandons plan for greater U.N. role in Iraq
Rather, Bush administration will seek help from other countries to assist occupation forces
THE NEW YORK TIMES
Wednesday, August 13, 2003
WASHINGTON ? The Bush administration has abandoned the idea of giving the United Nations more of a role in the occupation of Iraq as sought by France, India and other countries as a condition for their participation in peacekeeping there, administration officials said on Wednesday.
Instead, the officials said, the United States would widen its effort to enlist other countries to assist the occupation forces in Iraq, which are dominated by the 139,000 U.S. troops there.
In addition to American forces in Iraq, there are 21,000 troops representing 18 countries. At present, 11,000 of that number are from Britain. The United States plans to seek larger numbers to help, especially with relief supplies that are coming from another dozen countries.
Administration officials said that in spite of the difficult security situation in Iraq, there was a consensus in the administration that it would be better to work with these countries than to involve the United Nations or countries that opposed the war and are now eager to exercise influence in a postwar Iraq.
"The administration is not willing to confront going to the Security Council and saying, 'We really need to make Iraq an international operation,"' said an administration official. "You can make a case that it would be better to do that, but, right now, the situation in Iraq is not that dire."[/Q]
Tell that to the people who are losing loved ones over there you horses
. Not that Dire?
[Q]The administration's position could complicate its hopes of bringing a large number of American troops home in short order. The length of the American occupation depends on how quickly the country can be stabilized and attacks and uprisings brought under control.
The thinking on broadening international forces was disclosed on Wednesday as the United States moved on a separate front at the Security Council to get a resolution passed this week that would welcome the establishment of the 25-member Governing Council set up by the United States and Britain in Iraq.[/Q]
And there goes many opportunities. The opportunity to heal a wound between the UN and the US goes out the door. An opportunity to bring home more of our troops goes out the door. An opportunity to show that we can work through the UN goes out the door. THIS may very well be a foothold for the Democrats to attack during the election.
[Q]Security Council diplomats said on Wednesday that they expected the resolution to pass, but not without some qualms among some members.
In a measure of these misgivings, the diplomats said that the wording of the resolution was changed at the last minute on Wednesday morning from saying that the Security Council "endorses" the Iraqi group to saying that the council "welcomes" it.
The resolution would also establish an "assistance mission" of the United Nations in Baghdad to support various U.N. activities there. Both steps were sought by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan who had been under some pressure from Washington to make a gesture to recognize the legitimacy of the occupation.
[/Q]
Help me out here. On the one hand we are asking for assistance from the UN but we are saying they cannot come in as part of the "UN" but they are allowed to come in individually. And this vote will help legitimize the occupation so that nations can come in as long as they are not coming in under the label of "UN"?
Wow!!!http://www.statesman.com/nationworld/content/news/081303/0813iraq.html
Rather, Bush administration will seek help from other countries to assist occupation forces
THE NEW YORK TIMES
Wednesday, August 13, 2003
WASHINGTON ? The Bush administration has abandoned the idea of giving the United Nations more of a role in the occupation of Iraq as sought by France, India and other countries as a condition for their participation in peacekeeping there, administration officials said on Wednesday.
Instead, the officials said, the United States would widen its effort to enlist other countries to assist the occupation forces in Iraq, which are dominated by the 139,000 U.S. troops there.
In addition to American forces in Iraq, there are 21,000 troops representing 18 countries. At present, 11,000 of that number are from Britain. The United States plans to seek larger numbers to help, especially with relief supplies that are coming from another dozen countries.
Administration officials said that in spite of the difficult security situation in Iraq, there was a consensus in the administration that it would be better to work with these countries than to involve the United Nations or countries that opposed the war and are now eager to exercise influence in a postwar Iraq.
"The administration is not willing to confront going to the Security Council and saying, 'We really need to make Iraq an international operation,"' said an administration official. "You can make a case that it would be better to do that, but, right now, the situation in Iraq is not that dire."[/Q]
Tell that to the people who are losing loved ones over there you horses
. Not that Dire?[Q]The administration's position could complicate its hopes of bringing a large number of American troops home in short order. The length of the American occupation depends on how quickly the country can be stabilized and attacks and uprisings brought under control.
The thinking on broadening international forces was disclosed on Wednesday as the United States moved on a separate front at the Security Council to get a resolution passed this week that would welcome the establishment of the 25-member Governing Council set up by the United States and Britain in Iraq.[/Q]
And there goes many opportunities. The opportunity to heal a wound between the UN and the US goes out the door. An opportunity to bring home more of our troops goes out the door. An opportunity to show that we can work through the UN goes out the door. THIS may very well be a foothold for the Democrats to attack during the election.
[Q]Security Council diplomats said on Wednesday that they expected the resolution to pass, but not without some qualms among some members.
In a measure of these misgivings, the diplomats said that the wording of the resolution was changed at the last minute on Wednesday morning from saying that the Security Council "endorses" the Iraqi group to saying that the council "welcomes" it.
The resolution would also establish an "assistance mission" of the United Nations in Baghdad to support various U.N. activities there. Both steps were sought by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan who had been under some pressure from Washington to make a gesture to recognize the legitimacy of the occupation.
[/Q]
Help me out here. On the one hand we are asking for assistance from the UN but we are saying they cannot come in as part of the "UN" but they are allowed to come in individually. And this vote will help legitimize the occupation so that nations can come in as long as they are not coming in under the label of "UN"?
Wow!!!http://www.statesman.com/nationworld/content/news/081303/0813iraq.html
Last edited:
the heck? These other countries didn't ask for war in the first place, and now we want to place their servicepeople in the country to "keep the peace of liberated Iraq" rather than, like Dread points out, repair damages to UN and "let" them help in repairing this mess? They make it sound as if the U.S. asked them to buy a lottery ticket with us, and they declined, and when we won we refused to share our winnings. 
