You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
International
U.S. wants U.N. support on Iraq
2003-09-03
The Bush administration is preparing to ask the United Nations to transform the U.S.-led force in Iraq to a multinational force and to play a leading role in forming an Iraqi government.
Awww, how disgracing crawling back to the womb of the UN
It's a bad move on its face...
PRESIDENT BUSH and Secretary of State Colin Powell met on the issue Tuesday and agreed to move forward with a new U.N. resolution, an effort to attract more foreign contributions to postwar Iraq, three senior administration officials said to The Associated Press. Powell and his aides will begin talking about the new resolution in coming days with key members of the Security Council whose support is critical — close ally Britain, as well as France and Russia, two countries that opposed the U.S.-led war.
Mon amour, we will rename our freedom frites again into French frites
I somehow doubt we're going to do that...
The United States hopes that expanding the U.N. role in postwar Iraq will attract badly needed troop contributions from additional countries to help stabilize Iraq and more money to help rebuild the country. Last week, Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage said Washington was considering creation of a multinational force under U.N. leadership — but with an American commander — in an attempt to persuade reluctant nations to send troops to boost security in Iraq. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has ruled out a U.N. peacekeeping force in Iraq, but he has sought to turn the military operation into a U.N.-authorized multinational force.
Bit of a conflict there... Kofi wants it under the UN umbrella, but doesn't want to use UN troops... "We'll be in charge, you do the work."
Five months after the United States was forced to drop a U.N. resolution seeking authority to attack Iraq, administration officials say they do not want a repeat of that brawl. They say they expect the United States to engage in quiet, behind-the-scenes negotiations on the text of the resolution, to ensure it would be agreeable to the veto-wielding permanent members and the rest of the Security Council, and to project a unanimous, internationally backed stand on what happens next on Iraq.
Uhmm, c’mon guys we were just kidding, the UN is great, look we lowered our middle fingers let us please cooperate
"You guys provide the troops and pay for them, and we'll wear brass hats and run the oil for nookie program..."
According to the senior official, the Bush administration plans to begin talking to other nations within days about the new Security Council resolution. Diplomats say placing reconstruction under U.N. auspices will make it easier to garner contributions from nations that opposed the war, notably France and Germany. Belgium, too, said last week that it may be willing to donate money — if the United Nations was “playing a central role” in reconstruction."
"We'll kick in some, but only if we can rake it back..."
“The commitment of the United Nations has to be reinforced and reconceived,” he said. “The authority in Iraq should be the U.N. as opposed to the occupying powers.”
"'Cuz if it wasn't for the UN, the occupying powers wouldn't be there. Well, not now, anyway. A few years back, maybe..."
Bulgaria’s U.N. Ambassador Stefan Tafrov, another council member whose country has already provided troops to the U.S.-led force, said a new resolution should provide “as central as possible” a role for the United Nations. “What is clear is that all members of the Security Council and the international community at large need a stabilized Iraq. It’s in the interest of everybody, the Iraqi people to begin with,” he said. The administration is optimistic it can attract peacekeeping troops for Iraq from at least India, Pakistan and Turkey by placing the operation under the U.N. flag.
I'd be a lot happier to see them come from Kazakhstan, Peru, and Rumania, myself. Somehow I can't see Pak and Indian troops patrolling near each other without having periodic shootouts, followed by loud cries of "They started it!" If the Indos kick in, the Pak jihadis will be swarming to Iraq and then we're going to have to kill them and... Oh. Never mind.
Tentative drafts of a U.N. Security Council resolution circulated Friday among administration officials, but the State Department had yet to attract a consensus among them for expanding the U.N. role in Iraq.
Posted by:Murat

#22  "It's Bush giving the UN another chance, not the other way around"

What? Bush needs outside help, he has neither the money nor the support at home needed to continue with this gig the way it's going now.

The U.S. administration miscalculated on two major fronts..... the majority of Iraqi people did not greet the invaders with open arms and flowers and the international community did not come rushing in to help with the reconstruction effort after the fighting was done.
Posted by: stageleft   2003-9-4 10:47:36 PM  

#21  Time to get the rest of the world engaged in this Iraq resolution because eventually it will be in everyone's interest to have a stable Iraq. GW wants to bring the US troops home, not only because it might not be politically smart to have them still there in Nov 2004, but he may have further axis' to deal with shortly thereafter.

Eat a little crow today cause we might need some support down the road. And we stll owe Tony some favors.
Posted by: john   2003-9-3 9:36:42 PM  

#20  Frank - Ah yes, the "Spanish" influenza influence. I didn't own a home in Laficornia - always on the road, then - so I missed that one. You B right!
Posted by: .com   2003-9-3 9:33:56 PM  

#19  "Yo! Koffi! I got yer role right here, baby!..."

(/Brooklyn)
Posted by: mojo   2003-9-3 6:31:21 PM  

#18  .com - if you spent time in San Diego, you know the appropriate term is Patio
Posted by: Frank G   2003-9-3 4:15:23 PM  

#17  "who insisted the UN was the fount of all evil"
Now, now - let's not put werdz into other people's mouths! You opened the can... here come the worms...

The UN is one of, if not the least effective / efficient things ever devised and brought into being by man. Evil? Naw, I guess not. Screwed up and fails to deliver product or services without wasting 90% of every dollar? You betcha. Waste of time if you actually need to get something done during current lifetime or before a massacre occurs or before half of the population dies of starvation? Self-apparent answer: Yes to all. Completely unrealistic in its organization and staffing? Too many provable cases of "yes" to even count. It is mainly good for occupying space in news outlet product and chewing up monetary contributions and allowing a LOT of shitheads to run around New Yawk with diplomatic coverage and zero culpability. The dog just don't hunt.

If you wanna keep it for a pet, well, okay - but you have to feed it, take it for "walkies" and bathe it. Oh, and it stays on the porch. For Rust Belt residents: semi-enclosed area of home; usually exposed to the elements on 3 sides; quaint Southern affectation - good place to hang a swing and drink "lemonade"; pretentious people don't have porches - they have verandas - same same.
Posted by: .com   2003-9-3 3:25:12 PM  

#16  all evidence is that the US generals want the foreign troops. Evidently they see more uses for them than folks here.

However this is not necessarily a defeat for the US, only for those (not in the admin) who insisted the UN was the fount of all evil.

We cant evaluate the effect on Iraqi governance till the deal is finally hammered out.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-9-3 2:32:51 PM  

#15  I've posted on the foreign troop issue on my 'blog, third or fourth post down, and there's been extensive discussion of this over on windsofchange.net. (A.L.'s "belling the cat" post was the start). My opinion, in brief: Russia was allied with the previous regime, and despite (or perhaps because of) massive brutality can't pacify Chechnya; they have roughly as many troops there as there is civilian populace left. The other countries, like Turkey and Pakistan, have different issues. And I'm wondering whether what we need is more soldiers, or more cops instead. And whether we can trust them matters more than their numbers or firepower.
Posted by: Phil Fraering   2003-9-3 1:36:51 PM  

#14  Would like to see the books that document UN's helpfulness during the Oil for Food/Palaces Program. Maybe that couldbe arranged before the UN helps out some more.
Posted by: Super Hose   2003-9-3 12:41:56 PM  

#13  The story is all other the place. I don't think this will help Bush in our elections (I think we are seeing that the I-told-you-so crowd will run with this.) My guess is that this olive branch is an attempt to help Tony Blair's domestic position.

An indicator of what is actually happening willbe in the form of what international troops actually arrive. The only helpful troops would be Germans, Canadiens or Russians.

I say this because all the Eastern Asian countries will probably desire to keep their troops close to home. India, Turkey and Pahkistan are busy. For different reasons introduction of troops form any of those countries into Iraq might also be imflammatory. France is heavily involved in Africa.
Posted by: Super Hose   2003-9-3 12:39:37 PM  

#12  Look at the (lack of) sourcing on this story. It's another phony State Dept leak.
Posted by: someone   2003-9-3 12:04:06 PM  

#11  Easy, easy. I can shout, don't hear you, bitch. Hey I know your old lady, but we don't talk much. She told me "so what?" is your favorite phrase, but I already knew that. So what? So I smoked her, too - like I said, we don't talk much.
Posted by: .com   2003-9-3 11:27:27 AM  

#10  Oh, boy, here we go again. I thought Bush was an asshole for NOT going to the UN. Heads I win, tails you lose.
Posted by: Anonymous   2003-9-3 11:08:35 AM  

#9  .com buddy you keep me amazing, such a big mouth American patriot and then smoking Japanese cigarettes? Winston from JTI (Japan Tobacco Inc.) the same shit my wife smokes?
Posted by: Murat   2003-9-3 10:55:22 AM  

#8  Sorry, ".com". He's all yours.
Posted by: Tom   2003-9-3 10:53:32 AM  

#7  Oh, I almost forgot: Hey everybody - back off! Murat is my bitch! I will consider loaning him out. 2 cartons of Winston Lights per hour - in advance. Take a number.
Posted by: .com   2003-9-3 10:41:25 AM  

#6  Murat, you're simply tedious. Not clever and lacking a point other than hoping against hope for US failures, you're a pathetic and exceedingly small person. A year hence, you will be gone, because your reason for living will fade with every US step forward, every difficulty resolved, and every obstacle overcome. Each of those moments will diminish you personally, until you go *poof* in a little puff of illogical hatred. It's sad, really, but self-inflicted. Enjoy yourself, your time is limited.
Posted by: .com   2003-9-3 10:37:23 AM  

#5  I knew it was Murat on his first comment. Murat, you really DON'T understand Bush. He's just looking for contributions and posturing for the re-election so the Democratic candidates will have to STFU on this issue. I can assure you that NK, Iran, Syria, and the PA have no reason to sigh in relief.
Posted by: Tom   2003-9-3 10:37:21 AM  

#4  Bush is admitting defeat and he will end up like his dad : trounced by a Clinton.

He might just as well ask Chirac to become president of the US at once.
Posted by: Anonymous   2003-9-3 9:54:25 AM  

#3  "And with that Bush will cut the planks out from underneth the 9 Wraiths [neither dead or alive, but who covet power above all other things] who seek his office."
Soon to be 10 wraiths.
Posted by: Katz   2003-9-3 9:45:18 AM  

#2  How about: "We'd like you to help, but your demands are unacceptable. Since you won't participate without these conditions, but have indicated that you have the capability to provide said forces should we accede, We (the U.S.) instead request that you deploy your forces in the balkans, thereby freeing up our troops...it is in your backyard anyway, Frogboy"
Posted by: Frank G   2003-9-3 9:39:38 AM  

#1  Rope a dope part II. It's Bush giving the UN another chance, not the other way around. And like their children the Paleos, the UN will once again fail to take an opportunity to make the best of what is offered. They'll tack on all sorts of demands which will play into Bush's hand. See, I was reasonable and the league of dictators, tyrannts and petty thugs just demand more and more. And with that Bush will cut the planks out from underneth the 9 Wraiths [neither dead or alive, but who covet power above all other things] who seek his office. It plays domestically. Only the fringe left and anti-American crowd can believe the American political body would surrender their soverignty to such an international failure as the UN. Keep dreaming Murat.
Posted by: Don   2003-9-3 9:10:47 AM  

00:00