I thought the U.N. was irrelevant...

[Chewbacca]

Who was it that said the U.N. risked irrelevancy for opposing invading Iraq? Rummy? Powell? It was one of those fellows, I forget which one. Whomever, I guess they were wrong... eh?

Story

Realities push Bush back to U.N. News analysis by Judy Keen and Dave Moniz, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — President Bush's decision to ask for the United Nations' help in postwar Iraq is an admission that the current situation there cannot be sustained — militarily, financially or politically. U.S. forces are stretched to their limits; troops are dying almost daily. Reconstruction is more expensive than first thought and is progressing too slowly to prevent instability. And although administration officials say domestic politics is not a factor, Bush has a re-election campaign on his mind. His political advisers once envisioned his success in the war on terrorism as the centerpiece of his case for a second term. The pace of recovery in postwar Iraq has not given him much to boast about to voters. Those pressures forced Bush to swallow his pride and his inclination not to count on the United Nations, which he said last year was flirting with irrelevance. To get the U.N. help he needs, he also must solicit the support of Germany, France and Russia. His relationships with the leaders of those countries have been strained since they blocked his bid to win U.N. backing for an invasion of Iraq. Administration officials say they began discussing the need for more international help in Iraq in early August. Preliminary versions of a U.N. resolution were circulated in the first half of August, while Bush was at his Texas ranch. But the notion of returning to the United Nations to ask for help intensified on Aug. 19 when a bomb exploded outside U.N. headquarters in Baghdad. Barely 24 hours later, U.S. officials were roaming the halls of the United Nations and talking about a big new push for a resolution expanding the organization's role in Iraq. Advisers say Bush viewed the blast, which killed 23, as so brazen that it marked a turning point. It exposed the shakiness of security in Iraq and convinced the administration that the U.N., now a victim of postwar bloodshed, might be ready to become more involved. There was initial anger about that calculation, and some countries felt that the United States was cynically trying to exploit the bombing. But now, many diplomats acknowledge that the incident led to a cooling of tensions between the United States and its critics. "The aim of this resolution is to end this whole atmosphere of us vs. them," says a British diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity. Britain has been the Bush administration's most steadfast supporter at the U.N. and in Iraq, and it is backing the new U.S. push for a broader U.N. role. Administration officials insist that the decision to go to the U.N. was not a policy reversal, but merely an evolution. Bush believes the United Nations "has a vital role to play in the postwar Iraq, in helping the Iraqi people build a better future," Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said Wednesday. Regardless of official semantics, though, the decision was clearly a dramatic shift. White House officials said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld agrees that it's time to seek help. Without the concurrence of Rumsfeld, Vice President Cheney and other administration hard-liners, it's unlikely Bush would have decided to go back to the United Nations. "We've got three options in Iraq: cut back, bring others in or build more capacity. Of those options, number two is the best we have," says Richard Haass, a former official in Bush's State Department who is now president of the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank. Key to the administration's shift was the Pentagon's recent realization of the gravity of the situation in Iraq. There are about 145,000 U.S. troops there now, including about half the Army's large combat units. Pentagon leaders fear that any further deployments of Army soldiers could damage morale and prompt many soldiers to leave the service. Pentagon officials say it's likely that as many as 40,000 to 45,000 Army soldiers might have to serve back-to-back overseas tours within the next year because of the demands of missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and South Korea. The Army has about 180,000 soldiers tied up in those three countries. Some personnel experts fear an exodus of midcareer officers and enlisted soldiers out of the 480,000-member Army. Some believe the Pentagon might be at the leading edge of a personnel crisis. Army National Guard recruiting figures show that the Army Guard is about 7,000 recruits short of its yearly goal of 62,000, up from a 6,000-recruit deficit in April. The Guard has until the end of this month to make up the shortfall, but that seems unlikely. The shortage, experts believe, is directly attributable to the numerous callups of Guard and reserve troops since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. For Bush, the return to the United Nations fits a pattern. Last year, in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the White House said the 1991 U.N. resolution that approved action to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait was all the authorization needed to go to war again. After complaints from congressional Democrats and some allies, Bush agreed to seek renewed U.N. authority. A new U.N. resolution passed unanimously on Nov. 8. It authorized weapons inspections and implicitly threatened war if Iraq balked. By February, with inspections proving fruitless and war looking inevitable, there were calls for another resolution from the Security Council before sending in troops. Bush first resisted, but then capitulated again. When it became apparent that the resolution would not pass because of opposition from Russia and France, he withdrew it. After major fighting ended, there were renewed calls for the U.N. to play a bigger role in Iraq. Again the White House demurred, but then backed off and won a modest resolution that enabled more countries to join the coalition rebuilding Iraq. The new measure would be much more explicit. The calculation Bush made this week suggests he's willing to endure criticism for changing his mind if it defuses the growing crisis he faces in Iraq.

[Skunk]

Don't hold your breath. I think that Bush will not cede enough authority in Iraq to get through the first round of discussions - and then after he has done (eventually), I expect a lot of arguments to occur on the exact wording.

The other three permanent members of the SC are unlikely to approve any resolution which appears to legitimise the original invasion.

[Donut]

An amazing volte-face. It's very unusual for politicians to admit to failure.

[Skunk]

Hate to say that "I told you so" but...


France and Germany reject US Iraq plans

French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder have said a US draft resolution seeking greater international help in Iraq does not go far enough.
Speaking after talks in Germany, Mr Chirac said the US proposals "seem quite far from what appears to us the primary objective, namely the transfer of political responsibility to an Iraqi government as soon as possible".

Mr Schroeder said that while France and Germany had opposed the war in Iraq, both countries now wanted to help bring stability and democracy to the country.

Their comments came as US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called for 10,000 more foreign troops to be deployed in Iraq.

Mr Rumsfeld arrived in Baghdad on an unannounced visit on Thursday for talks with US commanders and civilian leaders there.

Britain has also ordered a review of its troop numbers in Iraq as negotiations got under way on the US-proposed draft UN resolution aimed at creating a multinational force...

Now if only lottery numbers were this easy to predict...

[ 09-04-2003, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Moiraine]

So, here's me asking again : when do the U.S. pay their arrear to the U.N. ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Lord Lothar]

Hmmm, come crawling back have they?

[Azred]

Typical political vascillating and weak-kneed wishy-washiness. I'm not surprised; now is the time for Bush to begin looking like a reconciler, since elections are forthcoming in the next year.

Moiraine...never, I hope. As far as I am concerned, [img]graemlins/flickdown.gif[/img] to the UN.

The problem with Americans is that they want military victories without the costs of those victories. Being reared on commercials and sound-bytes, too many Americans want nice, clean, quick, decisive victories and then to rush all the soldiers home in time for Christmas. [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img] If you can't stand the heat, then not only should you get out of the kitchen but you shouldn't venture into the kitchen in the first place.

[Chewbacca]

Dang skunk I'll let you know next time I plan of playing the lotto and give you a crack at it anyway! [img]smile.gif[/img] Though I made the same prediction in my head when I first heard a draft resolution was going to make the rounds.

Seriously though, I think the French and Germans may have some leverage considering going the U.N. route seems the best option for the U.S. I doubt Bush & Co. would be taking this step unless they absolutely had to. This typically means they come to the bargaining table in a weak position.

I thought I heard on the news C. Powell say something like 'whatever they want, they just need to spell it out' with regards to France and Germany's concerns regarding the first draft. Maybe Iraq will turn out to be a U.N. show after all and maybe some non-U.S./Britsh companies (ie. French, German, Russian) will get some of those lucrative reconstruction contracts as well.

I can almost hear the unilateralist, anti-french, "the U.N. is irrelevant" people's tears from here.

[Moiraine]

Bah Chewie, the U.N. is not yet in Iraq ! What the U.S. basically ask the U.N., is that they send troops, provided the U.S. be in command ...

No, really. "Look, guys, I wiped my ass with the Charter I signed and I owe you money that I don't intend to pay soon, now come join me. You'll do the dirty job and I'll lead. Is that OK ?"

Should the U.S. been dismantled as irrelevant ? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Chewbacca]

Yeah Moraine we did start the bidding low didnt we? I doubt we'll give up over-all military command no matter what, atleast in the foreseeable future. The bigger issue IMO is the U.N. civilian administration of Iraq. Restoring/forming governments and infrastructure is what the U.N. is good at correct? Let the U.S. do the dirty resistance/terrorist hunting and let the U.N. do what it does best. I hold both institutions (the U.S. & U.N.) in high regard though both have faults as well low points in leadership and policy. Of course being American I maybe biased we are all only human, right...

I dont know about this money being owed and I risk gloating, er um I mean, speaking to soon and too much with my previous post, but hey if I were France or Germany I would be asking for the moon right now.