| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Poland puts Iraq carve-up in doubt |
| 2003-05-07 |
| Plans to deploy a multinational stabilisation force in Iraq were thrown in doubt yesterday when Poland, one of the expected key troop contributors, insisted that the force required a UN mandate. Oh good grief. Someone check de Villepin's phone calls and itinerary for the past week. The demand throws a shadow over a meeting in London tomorrow aimed at securing pledges of troop deployments for the British zone of control. The Polish foreign minister, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, presented his position after talks in Washington with the US secretary of state, Colin Powell. "We believe that we need that kind of resolution. I understand that in days ahead there will be some initiatives opening the way to have such a resolution," he said. The US is preparing to present a comprehensive UN resolution to the UN security council covering the division of responsibilities and powers in postwar Iraq, but it is likely to meet stiff resistance from France, Russia and China. Ya don't say. The Cubs might win the Series before the resolution passes. A drawn-out debate over the resolution could delay the deployment of at least some of the stabilisation force. Poland was expected to be a key contributor, sending about 1,500 troops and commanding one of up to four zones of control. Some diplomatic sources suggested they would be sent to the port of Umm Qasr. British forces would be based in Basra, commanding a multinational brigade including Spanish troops, and a mix of forces from other European and Latin American states. Tomorrow's meeting will focus on shaping that brigade. American troops would control Baghdad, and Poland would be responsible for central Iraq. Mr Cimoszewicz has proposed a meeting on May 22 in Warsaw to finalise pledges of troop commitments. A fourth zone could be carved out in the north or west, but it is unclear which country would run it. Kurdistan? They seem pretty competent. The Spanish defence minister, Federico Trillo, said 1,500 of his country's troops would operate in the British area that he defined as "zone 4 south". Mr Cimoszewicz said it was intended "to have all the countries ready to engage" in Iraq by the end of this month. After meeting Mr Powell, he urged Germany and other European states to contribute to Iraq's stabilisation and reconstruction. "Success or failure will have broad international consequences," he said. Someone was gotten to. Spanish newspapers quoted defence ministry officials yesterday saying that Honduras and Nicaragua had offered troops for the "Spanish brigade" only if Spain paid for them. Chile and Argentina had said they would take part in a UN force only, the reports said. They can all stay home. The odd assortment of nations being consulted reflects the difficulties Washington has faced trying to gain support for its occupation of postwar Iraq. Few countries with experience in the Middle East are on board, and no Islamic countries have offered troops. Most of the willing are relatively impoverished states eager to enhance their relationship with the US but unable to pay their way. If we have to ante up, we should just do it with our own troops and be done with it. The Polish defence minister, Jerzy Szmajdzinski, said he had received an assurance from his American counterpart, Donald Rumsfeld, that the US would help raise money from international donors to cover the cost of about 1,500 Polish troops and a headquarters staff. Mr Szmajdzinski estimated the cost at $50m for six months. Poland's deputy defence minister, Janusz Zemke, said that the Polish troops could be initially stationed in Iraq for a year and then rotated every six months. He said they would play an important role protecting energy facilities, telecommunication hubs and transport arteries. Troops from a chemical defence regiment have already been mobilised and are expected to leave for Iraq soon. Mr Zemke said that up to 11 European countries had expressed an interest in taking part. "We are also getting signs that certain Asian countries, for example India, Pakistan and the Philippines, would be prepared to send troops," Mr Zemke said. Oooooo, send in the Hindoos. That'll restore calm not just in Iraq but also in Pakland. And aren't the Filipino troops needed in their own country right about now? I recall reading something about that yesterday in Rantburg. Most of the potential contributors are anxious to ensure their soldiers avoid conflict. Spain has stated that it does not want to have to intervene in demonstrations. "We want somewhere that is as calm as possible," said a government official quoted by El Mundo newspaper yesterday. How 'bout the Basque region? A senior US official said the US sector would be patrolled by 20,000 troops remaining separate from the 135,000 combat troops already in Iraq. Bulgaria's defence minister, Nikolai Svinarov, said his country would send 450 soldiers to Iraq. However, Bulgaria, like Poland, wants the US to help find funds to finance its contribution. This is a sucker's game. Tell 'em all to stay home and 'polish their bayonets'. We can handle this ourselves if we have to, and that will send another message. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #8 Good post. Of course the French are putting huge pressure on the Poles. You can be sure that what Chirac said in public re shut up/badly raised is still being said between the Quai d'Orsay and Warsaw. Any idea how Polish public opinion is on their troops on the ground in Iraq? |
| Posted by: michael 2003-05-07 11:10:46 |
| #7 Evidently, Kimmie's new book is all the rage in new Europe. |
| Posted by: Scott 2003-05-07 09:27:18 |
| #6 why we want help 1. To put an international face on it - so when bad stuff happens, its not "the American occupiers" 2. Overstretch - we've only got so many divisions. As KF points out, we want 135,000 combat troops in Iraq to put defend from the neighnors, pressure the neighbors, deal with regime remnants, etc. That plus commitments in Afghanistan, the Pacific, and elsewhere, and need for strategic reserve, doesnt leave a lot for peacekeeping. 3. "We dont do peacekeeping" - we want to keep our troops trained and sharp for combat - we dont particularly want the US military to dilute its warrior elan by getting too heavily into the peacekeeping business. So yeah, its worth it to have others aboard. And i wouldnt assume its going as badly as the article implies. It is afterall, from Al-Guardian. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-05-07 09:25:18 |
| #5 For those of you - not me - who can't read www.proche-orient.com in French, will be pleased to learn that they now post in English as well. You need to bookmark that site, if you want to learn something about the Islamofascization of France, that the juvies at www.fuckfrance.com can't understand. |
| Posted by: Anonon 2003-05-07 05:31:00 |
| #4 Ah yes the Euro rears its ugly head... I knew this was too good to be true. I hope my fellow countrymen remember that the EU won't solve their problems. Unless of course you happen to own property on "temporarily occupied German land". |
| Posted by: RW 2003-05-07 03:33:14 |
| #3 Might this be because they will be soon needed elsewhere? "the US sector would be patrolled by 20,000 troops remaining separate from the 135,000 combat troops already in Iraq" |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2003-05-07 03:26:40 |
| #2 No bases if they're this easily puppeted by the frogs. I think it's time for some Rumsfeld straight talk. |
| Posted by: someone 2003-05-07 01:55:27 |
| #1 We put $300m into Puerto Rico's economy (but not for long), how much are our bases going to put into theirs? They can't even come up w/a measly $50 mil? Geez, the ham, perogi & kielbasa (sp) concession alone should be worth about a few mil. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-05-07 01:51:35 |