 |
| |
|
|
ískallin
|
 |
of the Republic of Iceland
Mar 2002
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
The Bush administration is coming under growing domestic pressure over its Iraq strategy amid continuing attacks on US forces in the country.
The US Senate has voted unanimously to urge President George W Bush to consider asking Nato and the United Nations for help in rebuilding Iraq.
The non-binding resolution said that while it was in the interests of the United States to remain engaged in Iraq, conditions there posed a serious threat to American troops.
Public opinion in the US appears to reflect this disquiet, with polls showing a marked decline in support for the Bush administration's policy on Iraq.
The Senate vote came after General Tommy Franks, until recently at the helm of US-led coalition forces in Iraq, warned that American forces might have to remain in the country far longer than anticipated.
I'm now concerned that we have the world's best-trained soldiers serving as policemen in what seems to be a shooting gallery
Senator Edward Kennedy
General Franks said attacks on US soldiers, which have killed more than 30 since the war was declared over, were occurring at a rate of 10 to 25 a day.
Friday saw the US pull most of its troops out of a police station in the Iraqi town of Falluja, about 50 kilometres (30 miles) west of the capital Baghdad, a day after protests at the continued US military presence there.
An American military spokesman said about six soldiers would remain at the station to support the new police force in the town, where there have been frequent clashes between Iraqis and US forces.
Iraqi police officers had threatened to resign if the Americans did not leave the station, as they felt joint patrols with American forces placed them at risk of attack.
Overnight, a series of three mortar strikes were launched on an American base in the town of Ramadi, 100 kilometres (60 miles) west of Baghdad, although there were no injuries reported.
And the US military said two Iraqi civilians were wounded in crossfire following a rocket-propelled grenade attack on a US patrol near Baghdad airport.
'Share the burden'
Senators from the opposition Democratic Party - many of whom supported the decision to launch the war in Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein's regime - are expressing deep concern about events on the ground.
They are also raising questions about the administration's citing of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction as a justification for the decision to go to war. No such weapons have been found in Iraq.
The guts of the work will still have to be done by the United States, Great Britain and the original members of the coalition
Secretary of State Colin Powell
The Democrats urged Mr Bush to mend fences with France and Germany - key Nato members who were firmly opposed to the war.
Senator John Kerry, who hopes to challenge Mr Bush for the presidency next year, said: "We now know that the administration went to war without a thorough plan to win the peace.
"It is time to face that truth and change course, to share the post-war burden internationally for the sake of our country."
Senator Carl Levin, leading Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said it was "a mystery" why the Bush administration had not made a formal request for Nato forces in Iraq.
He expressed the hope that soldiers wearing Nato insignia would not be targeted in Iraq with the same ferocity as their American counterparts.
Reluctance
But there appears to be a marked reluctance among other nations to commit troops to support US and British forces in Iraq.
Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted there was uncertainty about the level of support the US and Britain could expect.
"I can't give you the exact number of nations or how many troops are going to be committed," he told CNN.
"The guts of the work will still have to be done by the United States, Great Britain and the original members of the coalition."
There is also concern about the cost of the US commitment to Iraq.
The Senate warned that the final bill for reconstruction would run into tens of billions of dollars over several years, and projected that Iraqi oil revenues will not cover those costs.
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said that the cost of continuing military operations in Iraq is running at $3.9bn a month, higher than anticipated. |
So why is it that the almighty Bush is considering to ask for help in Iraq, are his uber soldiers not good enough or what?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:29
|
|
Since the Republicans cut taxes for the rich here in the US, I don't even think that many Americans support the occupation. I certainly am not suprised that people in other countries don't support it. If they really needed the money then they shouldn't have cut taxes.
Last edited by Kidicious on 12-07-2003 at 00:20
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:29
|
|
we almost certainly can do this on our own if we have to - it doesnt seem like we need more than the currently deployed number to keep a lid on things while political reconstruction goes forward. However it comes at a considerable cost to the US military, in terms of lost training, harm to morale, etc. And a more fully multilateral force would be a greater assurance to the people of Iraq that this is a genuine liberation, and so would probably expedite the defeat of the Saddamites and the reconstruction of the country and so would be a good thing for the people of Iraq.
The question becomes one of command. The Senate, following the suggestions of folks like Joe Leiberman, seems to envision NATO command. While the administration has not yet publicly accepted that, its very unlikely that they wouldnt, - as in Kosovo a NATO force could report to SACEUR (Supreme Allied Commander Europe) who is usually (currently?) an American, and even if not I think we'd have little trouble with a NATO command. IIUC the problem is that France and Germany wont go under NATO command, theyre insisting on a UN command, or at least a more explicit UN authorization for such a force than in UNSC 1483. And NATO cant move as an organization if France and Germany veto. And the admin isnt inclined to publicly ask for NATO support if it isnt assured of getting it - they were already burned over the Turkey thing.
And this is a sensitive time politically in Iraq - theres a new 25 person Iraqi governing council forming. Balanced among ethnic and religious groups, clerics and secular, exiles and locals, and also between folks sympathetic to the neo-con agenda for the region (Chalabi and the Kurds) and people opposed to it (pachecho and SCIRI) Bringing in a UN command at this point might complicate things a bit - especially from the point of view of folks who dont trust the UN-French-Russian agenda for the region.
So i suspect this wont be resolved until the governing council is more firmly in place. Which may have been expedited because of the need to make the occupation force more multilateral.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-07-2003 22:44
True. 
Not to mention the human toll. 
).
.
|