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 ..."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."
U.S. Abandons Plan for Greater U.N. Role in Iraq
New York Times
August 13, 2003
In an effort to win broader international support for U.S. policies in Iraq, President Bush decided yesterday to seek U.N. Security Council approval of a resolution granting the world body greater control over multinational peacekeeping forces and a role in forming a new Iraqi government, administration officials said.Central to that effort is winning more pledges from other governments to send troops to Iraq to ease the burden on U.S. forces, who have come under daily attacks for weeks and are struggling to contain a recent outbreak of bombings against institutions supporting the U.S. effort. "We need the forces," a senior administration official said.
U.S. Wants Larger U.N. Role in Iraq
Washington Post
September 3, 2003
I guess we really can stop calling them "freedom" fries. And that crack about the "cheese eating surrender monkeys?" We didn't mean it. Honest. We're allies, right? Old buddy, old pal, mon cher?
Now about that donation to the Iraq Reconstruction Fund ...
Someday this just might be seen as one of those big historical moments -- comparable in a sense to the day in February 1947 when the British informed the U.S. State Department they could no longer meet their defense commitments to either Turkey or Greece. Britain was overstretched and broke. America would have to pick up the burden of defeating communism in the eastern Mediterranean -- and across Europe, for that matter. The era of the Pax Britannia had ended; the Pax Americana had begun.
Things aren't nearly as dire for America now as they were for the Brits back then. But the symbolism still can't be avoided: For the first time in America's history as a superpower, a U.S. administration has been forced -- against its will, and after making at least a half-hearted effort to avoid it -- to seek the aid of the lesser powers in a war it can no longer afford to fight alone.
You might argue the same was true in Gulf War I, which had to be financed by a previous incarnation of the Coalition of the Billing. The difference, however, is that the Bush I administration understood it's much better to seek such aid voluntarily -- and make a virtue out of the necessity -- than it is to be forced to the bargaining table by your own weakness.
And so all that tough talk by the neocons -- about an America that can pick and choose its allies, ignore global opinion, define its own rules and make war on its own terms -- is exposed as a monumental fraud. The neocon men, it seems, were conned by their own rhetoric.
Power, a good friend recently remarked, is an odd thing -- it's most impressive when it isn't being used. A wise hegemon goes to great lengths to conceal the true extent of its power. It always leaves something in the tool kit, so to speak, so that enemies and allies alike can never be sure exactly what's in there.
But the Bush Administration has let the cat out of the bag. It has exposed to the world the limits of U.S. military power -- both in terms of the size of the forces (divisions, troops) and the relative ineffectiveness of those forces on a complex social and political battlefield like the one America faces in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.
Even more to the point, Bush has signaled that the financial and political burdens of unilateralism are simply too great for any U.S. administration to carry for long. Forced to choose between greater mobilization at home (more troops, less tax cuts) and compromise abroad, Bush appears to have opted for the latter.
These events no doubt will be noted, and closely studied, by friend and foe alike.
America is still a superpower. It can and will, I'm sure, drive a hard bargain at the U.N. Security Council. The security of the Persian Gulf is critical to all the powers, not just the United States. Ironically, the very scope of the U.S. failure in Iraq may give the administration leverage, since it increases the risk that instability could spread, disrupting the oil supplies upon which the entire world depends.
The neocons have suffered a major defeat, one that could disrupt, if not derail, their grand strategy for the Israel and the Middle East. But they have not been driven from power. They will regroup, and intensify their own guerrilla war against Colin Powell and the State Department. This, too, could actually strengthen the U.S. negotiating position, since presumably our "allies" will understand the limits of what Bush can accept, given his vulnerability on the right.
But a watershed, of sorts, seems to have been crossed. America is still a superpower, but she is no longer a hyperpower -- a law unto herself. Which means the post-Cold War era -- that relatively brief moment when the American Century reached its zenith -- may have just ended.
I think you're being optimistic (for once). With the Nov '04 elections coming up, real politik will compel the other powers to hedge their bets -- remember how we handled the Gorby-Yeltsin transition? -- and wait to see if Bush makes it or become roadkill.
Obvious prediction: Such powers as France, Germany and Russia will make specific demands about such things as control over oil and contracting for projects - and be willing to delay endlessly until the US shifts on these. There's no domestic downside to being tough on the US over these issues.
What with the recent remarks by Mr. Boucher regarding "chocolate making nations" and the disparaging of the "little summit" called to discuss the future of an EU replacement for NATO...
One might think that the initial, and perhaps final response of several of the nations in question might just be:
"Fuck off."
It's one thing for Bush to say he wants UN intervention in Iraq, it's quite another thing to actually get it. Frankly, I think that ship has sailed.
As a representative of the only country whose troops are already dying out there in defence of the neocon strategy. I'd say that this is going to be a hard one to sell in Europe. Blair's fate is not encouraging. There are reasonable hopes that he'll get Indian and Turkish troops out of this. I'm sure the French will sign up to an agreement that leaves Indian troops garrisoning Iraq. But I don't see that any European power can now commit any significant portions of its army to Iraq and not face domestic horror when those troops start dying. I know we laugh at the Americans for their cowardice, but the same seems true in all advanced societies: we don't want wars in which any of our troops get killed. This goes double for wars as murky and unsure of success as the one in Iraq. So the Bushies may have left their recognition of reality six months too late.
The possibility of the chaos in Iraq spilling over into other Gulf states has to be of major concern to them.
By destablizing the region, the Bush gang has created a situation that could seriously disrupt their economies.
Neocon arrogance, stupidity and malevolence will make cooperation extraordinarily difficult. The treachery and incompetence factors guarantee maximum ill will.
The colinization is progressing as planned.
What if six months ago you were perfectly psychic and predicted everything that was going to happen in Iraq and you wrote about it and you called people and you went out in the street and shouted about it and well, nevermind...
I can't see anyone but a fool wanting to send
troops to iraq or doing... I mean Trying to do
any reconstruction. We Have One who Did and the
Britts have one also.
I think anyone who has the ability is going to
ask for A Lot. We Paid our supposed coalition
members and like the Iraqi generals wanted to be
paid not to fight at a level higher than the
Afghan war lords got because of the Oil involved
I think the EU countries are going to make US
wish we never went to war. Can we cut taxes
anymore and let That pay for it.. I'm geting
delusional..
Then, let's think for a moment about some sort of worst case scenario for a moment. A disruption of the Persian Gulf oil stream would certainly shake up the economical world structure as we know it.
The old, chocolate making nations with a lot of historical memory how to survive a world turning upside down, including, but not limited to war, genocide, galloping inflation, oppression, lack of all recources, will not easily be bullied by the temporary occurence of the neocons.
In Europe, they had a lot of sociological and political mecanisms guiding their policies in the post WW2 aera drawing from their history.
(Merriam-Webster: One entry found for realpolitik.
Main Entry: re·al·po·li·tik
Pronunciation: rA-'äl-"pO-li-"tEk
Function: noun
Usage: often capitalized
Etymology: German, from real actual + Politik politics
Date: 1914
: politics based on practical and material factors rather than on theoretical or ethical objectives )
Thus, they abandoned of nationalism for Pan-Europeanism, and they invested in alternative energies, fuel efficiency, etc, etc, pp.
In fact, they have survived, just as many other old countries, unspeakable horrors, and emerged making the finest chocolate all over again. They would survive a collapse of our oil-economy as societies as well, and still make fine chocolate.
Noone in Europe wants a High Noon Showdown, as noone in Europe wants their American friends to suffer the total decline of their geopolitical relevance.
But, Europe cannot settle for anything less than the right policies in Iraq. The issue there is less, as some posters might think the loss of life of European citizens or peacekeepers. The loss of any life for the wrong cause, fought in vain, is certainly unacceptable. Yet, trying to take the matches away from the bully neighbor who sits on a powderkeg is nothing but self-interest. The age of colonialism is irreversibly gone by.
Worst case scenario is: Europe will survive in unity. And make fine chocolate.
Emerging countries, underdevelopped countries, and former hyperpowers might not be so lucky.
The CBO is warning that we have to call up more National Guard units if we hope to maintain 150,000 troops in Iraq beyond the Spring of next year. Imagine calling up guard units during an election year?
And here's a good bit from CSM:
Officials here say that some basic infrastructure severely damaged during or since the war - as well as utilities neglected under the old regime - is expected to remain unrepaired. These include utilities, leaving many Iraqis with worse standards of living than they had under Saddam Hussein.
The article goes on to say that donors' money won't kick in until 2005 -- even assuming they're willing.
from Reuters :
Pentagon May Have to Reduce U.S. Forces in Iraq -CBO
I doubt the UN will commit the huge amount of troops that's needed, because they might think it's too late for improving significantly the situation. Don't forget that amongst other things, now some foreign figthers have set foot in Iraq, and they will prove difficult to root out of there. Look what happened with the taliban. The political cost of having dead peacekeepers for the sake of Halliburton would be very high for the contributing nations' leaders.
Some countries might contribute a little to show a bit of good will, but not having Shrub in the WH would certainly up the odds for the massive UN involvement that's needed.
"U.S. Wants Larger U.N. Role in Iraq"
All this means is that the Bush administration wants financial help from France, Germany and Japan for their little mis-adventure in Iraq.
I wonder if the leaders of France, Germany and Japan are stupid enough to give it to them.
There are here a couple of widespread fallacies:
- "Iraqi chaos will spread to neighboring countries." No, just as democracy will not "Domino" the Mid-East into happiness. Containment will be the wise choice, the Chocolate Makers's choice.
- "the Europeans are willing to help." No, as long as the Inept Bunch is in charge I doubt European governements will get anything from the US worth the political price they'd pay sending troops. Bush should immediately endorse and sign both the Kyoto Protocol and the ICC Treaty to impress Euro politicians and voters. That will never happen.
Iraq is fu***d up and will probably not be mended. The US, the Poodles and their groupies are on their own. Good luck.
Couldn't we pay for it if we just rolled back the tax cuts? Just asking.
billmon - I, too, think you're being optimistic today. Isn't Putin coming to visit this week - or soon? I imagine he'll be toting quite a laundry list, including a line item suggesting his old oil contracts be validated. Vodka Makers will want their relevance acknowledged, too.
All the Old Chocolate, Cheese, Champagne, and Vodka Makers might enjoy twisting some neocon balls for awhile, and who can blame them!
Looking at the situation from the UK, my guess is that the talk about Bush requesting UN backing for a multinational force is another spin project. The Germans and the French are not going to put their troops under a non-NATO operation US commander, period. The temptation for that commander to detail them for all the shit jobs and save American lives and limbs would be way too great -- any senior military man is a politician more than a soldier and he lives and dies by publicity (see Patton and MacArthur for egregious examples).
You will note that the British military presence in Iraq is run by British senior officers with a well-defined area of responsibility. Unless the French and the Germans are given the same "privilege" then you can forget it, and they won't.
After Bush gets told to aller se fouter he can pull American troops out of "ungovernable" Iraq and blame the resulting chaos on the perfidious French who refused to support American peace efforts yadda yadda. It'll make good talking points when the election campaign starts.
So, does this mean the end of the grand neocon Project For a New American Century already?
Visions of imperialism and world domination are not on the Christmas list this year?
Subjugation of the the world's masses of poor people to the multinational corporations not on the ledger books now?
What's a fascist to do?
Billmon, you are being somewhat optimistic. The neocons are far from admitting or enjoying a serious setback. (The only serious setback for them would be if Bush isn't relelected.)
This is just a way to continue the occupation of Iraq while getting other countries to put their troops in harm's way. They will continue to call the shots, and to do as they wish. They will hate the U.N. and treat the U.N. force as lackeys.
I am surprised at Kofi Annan's assurances to Negroponti, considering the considerable obstacles the U.S. faces in getting the Security Council on board, as many above have noted. Assuming that somehow the U.S. prevails (assembling a further coalition of the "billing," as you nicely put it) and buy U.N. participation, the participants will be able to name their prices.
I, personally, can't imagine any of the major countries sending troops to Iraq. The situation is too volatile, and anyone who sends men will have to defend the inevitable deaths to the populace back home. What giveaways from the U.S. will the leaders of France, Russia, Germany, not to mention others, be able to sell to their own countrymen when the deaths start piling up?
Remember the millions across the world, and especially in Europe, that took to the streets to oppose Bush's War on Iraq. Remember the vicious attacks made by the neocons on our Old Europe former allies, the "chocolate makers". These governments will consider saving the US bacon because in the end it is to their advantage (for oil alone). But the price they will need to extract for their cooperation may be, should be, no less than the public humiliation of one George W. Bush. They will drive a very hard bargain.
quid send your guys and gals to get shot at and killed in Iraq under the fig leaf of 'UN Sanction'
Quo
india - lean on Mr McGreevey and others not to ban outsourcing contracts to India; Stop sending fighter planes to pakistan; Allow our pharma companies to export generic drugs to other parts of the world (this is already done)...
cheese eating surrender monkeys -- can we talk about those oil contracts we had with Iraq? and while we are at it mon ami howzabout those steel tariffs and that farm bill? Also, would you mind telling Israel not to bomb the Iranian nuclear plant (and if they must, can we get to supply the replacement reactors?)
germany - if you will stop screwing with the euro! plus we have some pretty good contracting firms ourselves that are NOT called bechtel hint hint, nudge nudge, wink wink
you get the idea.
At the end of the day, this is a game to all these guys. France is no more a friend of the oppressed Iraqi than the US neocons. They were just smarter about how to take advantage of Saddam so they could get their grubby little hands on all that oil.
no need to add much to what has been expressed above.
yet its fascinating to watch the movement of the neocons. it would really be interesting to see the inner workings of the government as they size up their predicament. the best 'relaity' show for television.
the rumblings of rummy, the sheer hubris of dummy 'w', et al. and now they have to follow the direction of the house slave. the real clicher is keeping the dumbed down american public receptive to tax cuts and body bags. bummer.
Mmmm. UN Brand flypaper!
Yeah, but what I wanna know is: When are we gonna start punishing France and ignoring Germany??
The Bushies SAID we we're gonna do that!!
I wonder how the UN negotiations will go, considering that the neocons have been hammering publicly recently for two things: more U.S. forces (Robt Kagan in the WaPo, Wolfowitz in the WSJ) and handing the reins of "government" to Chalabi (Bernard Lewis, Chalabi op-ed linked by Billmon). This little drumbeat is timed to coincide with Chalabi's rotating into the chair of the interim governing council for the month of September. (You know, that month when you roll out new products....)
Early next year will be a critical time. The 101st Airborne will rotate out in February. Karl Rove will do everything in his power to make it possible for U.S. force levels in Iraq to be much, much lower from March onwards.
The internal battles in the administration are not only between the neocons and the State-CIA wing, but between them and Rove. This sorry spectacle would be amusing to watch if only so many lives and economies weren't in the balance...
Contrary to what many posters here are arguing, I think this is a lose-lose situation for the neocons. If the UN agrees to a major role in Iraq, this would be a devastating setback to Perle, Kristol, et al, who just a few short months ago were confidently declaring that the UN was "dead." Thus, in a painful yet delicious irony, the neocons will have amply demonstrated the vital importance of the UN through their perfidy 'n' idiocy. Heh.
On the other hand, if this latest gesture to the UN falls apart (as I suspect), we'll essentially be on our own in Iraq (well, with the help of the Bulgarians, of course). Thus, as Iraq becomes more "ungovernable" (dontcha love these euphamisms?), it will be painfully obvious to all but the most deluded ideologues that the neocon vision of US military hegemony is unteneble, and even disastrous. Thus, the grand neocon dream of invading/conquering Iran, then Saudi Arabia, then Egypt will be as likely to happen as my beloved White Sox winning the World Series.
Under either scenario, the neocons are screwed. Good riddance...
Blessed are the chocolate makers.
Re the PNAC plan for Mideasten dominance: whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad.
What's the chances of France, Germany and Russia pulling a 'Iran hostages' move and stalling any move on rescuing the U.S. in Iraq until after the '04 elections? It could be a wise move on their part. Clearly, any democratic administration that takes over after a Bush loss would be more willing to mend fences by conceding more than the neo-cons.
Why should europe bail out the U.S. in Iraq when it goes against their best interests?
Look if our troops get freed up between now and Nov'04 Bush will start another war. Either with NK or invade another country in the ME like Syria or Iran.
And worse our people will support it. Doubt me? Bush has 65% approval ratings and with a citizenry this stupid and passive. Most will believe anything Bush says.
In short helping Bush is like aiding a serial killer.
Werner Thomas: I hope Europe's leaders are as wise and far-seeing as you are.
Of course, that will also (sadly) prove Cynic's point, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Pulling the neo-cons asses out of one fire just encourages them to start two more.
PS: I never think of Germany when it comes to chocolate? What brands should I look for, or where should I go if I find myself in Germany?
Also,no one has mentioned that the French soldats are quite busy with their own mess in Africa, and so are the Russians in Chechnya, conflicts that eat up resources but have their own constituancies at home, unlike Iraq. Oil can always be bought from grateful Iran, plus isn't France's power heavily nuclear anyway?
Bush has 65% approval ratings and with a citizenry this stupid and passive.
actually, he's down in the low 50's right now, and falling.
come on Dems, stick it to the bastard!
Look if our troops get freed up between now and Nov'04 Bush will start another war. Either with NK or invade another country in the ME like Syria or Iran.
This is exactly right. Why should Europe free up US troops for more neo-con adventurism.
Can Leadership Get Any Worse?
We are finally going to the U.N., and to countries such as France and Germany, to request assistance and share the burden of Iraq. Fairly. One wonders why this hasn't been done earlier.
"The effort to secure international assistance is "a tacit admission that we don't have the forces there to get the job done," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Wednesday on ABC's "Good Morning America." "If we don't turn things around in the next few months we are facing a very serious long-term, problem.""
Why do I characterize this as a failure of leadership? Simple. If Senator McCain's statement is to be taken at face value, we now seem to be negotiating in a position of weakness. This is a great turnabout from the mood and stature around the world we wielded after 9/11. Then, we could ask, even demand, in negotiations with a position of strength, for nations to help us in a fair and equitable way. Win-win for everyone, and most of all for us, because we're driving events.
Now, on the other hand, we're being driven by events. Since in the initial war buildup we played hardball with negotiations, and overestimated our strength, we in the end poisoned some of those relationships, and made it clear we could go it on our own, with the help of a few traditional friends (not to mention a number of "rogue's gallery" allies). We scorned the very idea of needing the help of "Old Europe", or the U.N., and then marched into war in arrogance and lack of full preparation.
The situation has changed. As Senator McCain states it, if we don't get help now, "we are facing a serious, long-term problem". This almost sounds like a bailout. In other words, we are becoming dependent on assistance now, and everyone knows it. This is not, and no longer, negotiating in strength. It is weakness. Looking at the whole picture, from the beginning of the war process until now, it is incompetence and bungling.
Whoever was driving this process really thought they were the smartest and baddest people in the world. The only ones who understood the rod and mantle of power. What a joke. They have ruined the highest state of global solidarity in memory, post-9/11 sentiment, and fumbled negotiations for a very expensive and perilous war that could have been easily handled otherwise.
They have fumbled away great opportunities, and, like sorceror's apprentices, caused havoc with power. Since the sane individual doesn't agree with their "power-or-else" philosophy, and may indeed believe that ordered and respectful relations are the keys to world peace and prosperity, nothing in the overall picture has been irretrievably lost. Only some time, and we know there are those who are set on striking us. To them, we must turn our attention, along with our freedom-loving and peace-nurturing friends and allies around the globe.
Peace.
I'm curious to find out just how much BushCo is willing to share in Iraq. It was extremely arrogant for them to think 'We get the oil and profits and the UN gets to provide men and money'. I will take the wait and see attitude for now because I don't think they're willing to part with any of their profits.
President Sorcerer's Apprentice. Now that's a good meme!
This is all about the limits of military power. These bastards are learning this lesson the hard way. It is no coincidence that the architects of this mess are chickenhawks. The fact is that they didn't learn the lesson of Vietnam. It is apparently a lesson that needs to be learned and re-learned the hard way. There are limits to military power. If you get on the wrong side of a nationalist struggle, you have two choices, defeat or genocide.
This is the lesson that most Americans , particularly those who served, learned in Vietnam. However, this crowd took a very different lesson from that conflict. To them, the failure in Vietnam was that the media and the hippies prevented the military from doing its job. It is this bullshit attitude that is at the heart of the neocon miscalculation.
The original post was completely correct. Power is most effective when it isn't used. We have now shown the world what the limits of our power is, and it will be exploited ruthlessly in the coming years. We have little George and the flock of chickehawk neocons to thank for this and the misery to come.
All this time, Osama bin Laden must be laughing his ass off.
re:Posted by doesn't matter at September 3, 2003 11:31 AM
I hope Europe's leaders are as wise and far-seeing as you are
..well, two out of three North American country's leaders are wiser than Shrub and his bullies. Aznar, Spains good and loyal friend to the US, denies any wrongdoings by Franco and even that Guernica ever happened. Strange, how some atrocity-denial doesn't make headlines in the States.
the road to hell is paved with good intentions is probably what more and more Britons come to think when they look at Blair.
To (sadly) prove Cynic's point would be to have exactly some black and white thinking that, a good measure of the American populace seem to display these days: At the end of the day, this is a game to all these guys.
I disagree with that view. I especially look forward reading the books by Joschka Fischer/Colin Powell in the future.
Also, I tend to believe that a franco-german economical rebuilding model of Iraq would involve few recources, draw heavily on iraqi engeneering and labourpool, get Iraqi buisnesses and employment jumpstarted and with a free and prosperous Iraq, they will come very voluntarily to buy the best chocolate for their money - from Europe.
The neocon agenda is above all, to convince the world that American Chocolate is in fact chocolate, and force as many people worldwide as possible to eat it.
Here is the test (for arguments sake; I don't endorse this product): get your hands on some Canadian KitKat and compare it to American KitKat - aaahhhh, see! They lied, it isn't even the semblence of chocolate!
PS: as for finest chocolate, I am very partial to Swiss.
The point in question though is, practically anywhere in Europe you can get very good homemade chocolate, but no American KitKat. That is what the European populace likes: Good Things Done Right® .
The same, the majority of Europeans wish for Iraq: Good Things Done Right®
werner,
i wish i could believe you that the French would do a better job with Iraq, but I cannot forget that they gave Osirak to Saddam Hussein. They armed him and now they are assuming the moral high ground?
french have nothing but french interests in their hearts. like all colonials they will do what is good for themselves and throw a few crumbs to the locals. 'twas so in India, Africa and South America (french Guyana). 'twill be so in Iraq.
If it was up to me, I would let China, India and Japan reconstruct Iraq.
Billmon,
I agree with most of your points, but I don't agree that what is being demonstrated is the limits of American power - just the limits of Bush's post-9/11 foreign policy 'cart blanche.' That is to say, if the U.S. needed to win this war, it could certainly field a lot more troops - but of course that would require a draft. It would also require lots more money, and drive the deficit to the trillion dollar mark. Bush's already waning opinion poll numbers would plumment like a stone if he took either course - so it's really just a demonstration of how little Joe-Dumbass really cares about the war - sure, he'll put an American flag sticker on the back of his pickup, and threaten every perceived liberal around him, but actually fight? Well, that's another matter.
That's not to say that I believe the war is winnable - we are doomed to fail, as is any U.N. force, if it sticks to the premise that the Kurds won't get their independence and the Shi'ites won't get their Islamic Republic. But it sure isn't our 'best effort,' if you catch my drift.
I keep thinking about this in terms of a kid bully who is unaware of the concept of responsibility, of choices and consequences, of regards for others, etc.. The Bush administration has behaved and apparently continues to behave like a bully on the playground. Following the analogy, it will be of utmost importance for the rest of the world and for the bully(!) to not bail out this administration. The bully can't learn in any other way.
As I see it, the Europeans don't have to act to bail Bush out right now. If they're interested in playing realpolitik - and they invented the word, so you think they might know something about it - they should let Bush stew in his juices for 14 more months - thus influencing our foreign policy much in their direction. An incoming Democrat (and staying out of Iraq until 2005 would help ensure that) would be more than willing to have the Europeans in - in fact, it would be a campaign promise, for sure - and on their terms, to boot. And then (maybe) things like Kyoto, various nuclear treaties, the ICC, etc. could also be dealt with on terms more favorable to European interests.
Anyway, is Iraq really going to destabilize the region that much in the near term? I don't see it. Right now, the steaming cow pie Uncle Sam has left in Iraq is drawing out all the flies from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, etc. If they're allowed to come back home unambiguously victorious - a la Afghanistan and the mujaheddin - then OK, they will have a destabilizing effect on their home countries. But right now, the real militants from those countries are elsewhere, engaged in a war against the US and not stirring up problems at home. And, if anything, one would think the trouble in Iraq is strengthening the Iranian mullah's hands - the US is in no position to intervene there and those within Iran that might have wished it should be having second thoughts about now, having seen the way things are going in Iraq. So as I see it, the pressure is off Europe right now to act right away or risk widespread "destabilization." Yes, they don't want to see the situation deteriorate forever. But the European leaders would have to suffer tremendous backlash from their own populations if they do anything that's perceived as bailing the Cowboy out. Better to allow the situation to worsen for him and hope to deal with his successor running a somewhat chastened US.
Don't know if anyone else caught it, but McCain was still pushing the line that this is necessary because "The State Dept. is way behind on this one, blah blah blah..." (Translation: it's the house n****r's fault). I guess no one told him >>cough BULLS**T!<< how much post-war planning State DID before the war, which the Pentagon smugly blew off.
Damn haloscan...meant to finish with
...I guess no one told him **cough BULLS**T!** how much postwar planning State DID do before the war, which the Pentagon smugly blew off.
hmmm.... hate to pop the bubble, cynic, but China's history is one long orgy of imperialism, and Japan isn't much better. (Did you know that the last battle in the field between Japanese indigenous people and the Imperial forces was as late as the closing years of the sixteenth century?)
India, I don't know, but I do know nations don't grow big through the blessings of heaven. They grow big through pounding everyone around them flat.
It's truely amazing to see how many people making comments here know absolutely nothing about what they are talking about.
As for asking the UN for help, *shrugs* Notice that they've been asking the US for help lately. Turnabout is fair play.
The thing to watch is whether Bush is willing to give up any control (and profits) to the UN and/or any countries that offer to help us.
One interesting thing in all of this is what Bush is willing to back down on -- going back to the UN with hat in hand is definitely an indication that he is willing to back down on the foreign policy front (and disappoint the neocons?). Notice that there is no indication that he is willing to disappoint Norquist or his plutocratic cronies (I suspect they have his highest loyalty). They will keep their snouts in the till of both Iraq and the US until they are forceably removed. As far as I can tell, nothing will dislodge them from their sucking up as much money as possible. Do you think that if Bush lost in the next election, he and Cheney would high-tail it to some "independent" country with all their ill-gotten gains ala Marcos?
It's truely amazing to see how many people making comments here know absolutely nothing about what they are talking about.
And now we have one more ...
"It's truely amazing to see how many people making comments here know absolutely nothing about what they are talking about."
No, what's really amazing is not that a bunch of people on the internet don't know what they're talking about - that's par for the course - it's that they seem to have more grasp of the basics than the present US Administration. Was the problem of Iraq a crisis requiring immediate response or something we could have waited on? Administration says its a crisis - but found no WMD's or even WMD programs, now even after 5 months of occupation. Were the people of Iraq going to throw roses at the troops' feet? Admin says yes, Iraqi people pretty much have said no. Was Shinseki right about how many troops needed over the long haul, or Rummy? Admin says Rummy - cold reality now says Shinseki was right. How much would the occupation cost? Admin says it would pay for itself out of Iraqi oil sales - reality shows that oil sales come nowhere near the necessary costs of occupation, at least up until now and for the foreseeable future. Did the US need the help of major industrial allies, or could it go at it with the help of the likes of Bulgaria, Mongolia and Fiji? Admin said that its coalition would be enough - even until a month ago, as Billmon's post shows - and now the Admin is coming back to its major industrial allies, hat in hand, looking pretty wrong from where I stand.
If you're so well-informed, Anon - help set not only the people on this board but in the Administration straight - since we all could use the help.
Anon adds very little. A timid soul he/she is. Explain your dissent, and support your assertions with analysis.
How exactly has the U.N., which is not really the issue anyway, it's France and Germany, been asking for U.S. help in any distinctive way lately?
where's the money being spent is the real deal...aWol's got his fingers on the purse and wants to keep it flowing into his owners hands...
the inclusion of other countries might dillute the share that cheney&co. grift off the top...letting the europeans contribute brings into play eyes that will note how the money is spent...after bombing the hell out of the infrastructure cheney&co. meant to stuff themselves with the booty and may have to let others into the game...neocon hubris is our best
asset for getting cheney&co. out of office but
they are getting away with billions in the mean time...a follow up investigation and recovery
of funds over charged and no bid into GOP hands
is called for and must be next...
I guessed that the help referred to must have been in Liberia, where the US contributed the efforts of seven Marines.
Dear cynic,
re:Posted by cynic at September 3, 2003 02:18 PM
I wouldn't neccessarily contradict your assessment, nor your conclusion.
Thus, you will agree, that stability is in every nation's self-interest.
I'd just want to add to your train of thought. France, for instance has a sizeable North African populace and her own experience with terrorism by disenfranchised fundamental islamists. I don't believe that Europe has any problems with the good intention of a stabilized Middle East - Europe is it's direct neighbor. It is not an Ocean away, you can actually walk there. As for Europe joining the ride on the paved road to hell though.....
But, confined Iraqi quagmire or not, Europe is almost equally worried about climate change. Significantly more people just died in Europe's latest heatwave than in 9/11. (no disrespect for the victims meant at all). The missing ratification of the Kyoto Protocol is a simply a greater threat to Europe's stability than the confined Iraqi quagmire. I'd argue, there would be no benefit and no interest right now to Europe other than to send civilian UN personell for reconstruction. And Germany's forces are overstretched already with their peacekeeping missions including the Balkan and Afghanistan. On top, without a clear UN mandate, it'd be unconstitutional to send troops into any crisis area for them. No go! That is the only reason why the Neocons dropped Germany from their hate-list. No opposition in Germany could change that fact. With France, that is different. Their Constitution allows intervention with UN mandate.
(pardon my cynicism).Granting stability to western first world hegemony - sure, that is supportable.
Granting stability to the neocon administration - no, why should they.
Our good American Friends - we can't wait to hug them again, after their next election. (end cynicism)
After all, Iraq, all through the horrid years of sanctions, was a quite modern and fairly westernized country. Hence, I don't believe the Iraqi taste for Chinese cars and Indian chocolate is very highly developped. Nor, for American KitKat.
It's truly amazing that so many armchair jingoists don't know how to spell . . .
I suggest that the UNSC demands regime change in the US as a precondition for negotiations on the Iraq "roadmap."
Re comment of "Anon", Billmon, I smell a neocon troll under your bridge. Need a billygoat?
Vicki made a good point. Putin is arriving with a laundry list. Don't forget that there are already billions worth of Euro-Russian contracts in play. The US wants to renege on all that money AND have the contract owners pony up more billions to bail it out, then send troops to get killed.
Ha, haha, hahahahahaha. Lunatics.
Billmon wrote: Things aren't nearly as dire for America now as they were for the Brits back then.
Yes they are, you did a great job yourself a couple of months ago demonstrating that the US is essentially bankrupt and the only thing that keeps it afloat is global fear of a total collapse.
But the symbolism still can't be avoided: For the first time in America's history as a superpower, a U.S. administration has been forced -- against its will, and after making at least a half-hearted effort to avoid it -- to seek the aid of the lesser powers in a war it can no longer afford to fight alone.
It is not seeking help. As others have said, it is trying to lay off the blame. Even putting up a resolution that asks for troops and money but demands control of the military and, presumably, the money and the politics and everything except the knitting circle is guaranteeing failure; either at the drafting stage, or the voting stage, or the implementation stage.
Little Georgie is going into an election with a major financial heamorrhage, a steady drumbeat of bodybags hitting the tarmac, no oil to show for it, chaos in Iraq and a re-invigorated Taliban making a play for Afghanistan and a slogan that shouts "Vote for Me! ITS NOT MY FUCKING FAULT!!!!"
HA, HAHA, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Drop dead Georgie
Quo
cheese eating surrender monkeys --
germany --
Keep your nose out of Eastern Europe, No Military Bases of any Kind.
Keep your nose out of the Maghreb Countries, no military bases of any kind.
Close your Miliatry bases in Europe.
Dan
I think Fuck-off puts it rather nicely.in my opinion "Old Europe" and the rest may not have supported Bushco for just what is happening now-a political vacuum in Iraq with too many players too fill the hole.
So, does this mean the end of the grand neocon Project For a New American Century already?
Shit, if present trends hold, the New American Century won't have lasted as long as an average Fox sitcom.
Bush's UN float is DOA.
Forget the construction contracts. That's small change. The European economic demand will be for future Iraqi oil shipments to be bartered in PetroEuros instead of Dollars, and there's no way Bush can give in on this.
Kyoto is important, and the ICC is a nice afterthought, but strategically speaking, PetroEuro is the big enchilada for European (and thus broader UN) participation. The barter currency for oil is the lynchpin of the entire Middle East economic structure, and as such is the single most important determinant of relative political influence in the region. As such, a dual currency system for oil (with PetroEuro production in Iraq, and later Iran and perhaps even Russia) is the only thing Bush can offer that the Europeans can possibly see as worth it to step into this terrible mess.
It would also be the worst thing that could happen to Bush. Simply put, PetroEuro is a 'read my lips' moment on cocaine. The US PetroDollar monopoly is a chief reason Texas oil men are able to get the lion's share of contracts in the Middle East. But if PetroEuro happens, Dubya knows he will go down in Texas Oilmen's history as the guy who sold them all out to the chocolate makers, and fundraising will dry up faster than a rattlesnake in a frying pan.
So, why is the UN resolution DOA? Because I'm betting Bush won't pay the price in PetroEuros. Instead, the drip of poor GI's will blood continue so that Bush can remain loyal to his campaign contributors.
Such appears the state of the nation at present. . . and here's hoping for better.
Exactly what makes you belive that Iraqi wants thousands of German and French troops, and god forbid Russian troops in their country?
All France and Russia have ever cared about is thier oil contracts, and germany is France's lap dog.
This operation like all ilitary operations never goes to plan, but it is still on track.
How many of you were quick to say that Iraq would be another vietnam, Bahgdad would be a blood bath, bollocks. Losing people is regretful, but in the end total losses so far are nothing like vietnam not even remotely.
The only reason that America is struggling now, is because of forces that she keeps in Europe still for the NATO as well as Korea, Ahganistan, Bosinia etc. Of course France not being a member of NATO, can insult while enjoying the warmth of its protection. If I was America I'h start windrawing troops from Europe and let the European countries start taking up more of the slack for their own defence. Of course the squealing might become very load indeed, but cut your cloth to suit the circumstances and all that.
I will remind you, Limey, that Vietnam started with a slow drizzle of blood also and took years to reach Tet level. Give Iraq five years to catch up before you make the comparison.
Good point on the PetroEuros nightowl. If the Euro becomes the basis for oil trading then our entire financial system in the US gets a body blow.
Limey, I think you had better research your info before spouting off like that. Of course France is a member of NATO (what do you thing OTAN stands for on their website? Yes it's the acronym in French) They are one of the charter countries. http://www.nato.int/structur/countries.htm might help you out a little.
However...the US and petroeuros this is extremely interesting - add Russia, Norway, Caspian Sea nations, and if the UK ever decided to drop the quid - that's a lot of pressure for the petroeuro. That's even before you mix in Arabic countries in the Maghreb and the Gulf. With that there would be a lot of other oil dominos falling very quickly (Nigeria, Angola, Camaroun)
You think the whitehouse chimp is squirming now (well okay probably not him, but Greenspan likely is), wait a couple years for this to become a large issue...
drip
drip
drip
drip
One of the biggest mistakes the present administration has made is ignoring the deepseated
feelings all arab, asian and african nations have against their past colonial masters. so, no matter how this administartion spins its inavsion of Iraq as "liberating" the Iraqi people from a monstrous dictator, the average Iraqi or Arab, for that matter, sees the Americans and ,of course, the British, as the imperialist from the past coming in to recolonize their country for its oil. The fact that this entire project was conceived by the Israeli propagandists in the U.S.
makes it doubly offensive to the Iraqi and Arab peoples.In effect, this is now a war of national
liberation in the same vein as the Vietnam War was.Saddam may have been a cruel bastard but, in the eyes of the Iraqis, he is at least their bastard while the Americans and the British are the detested past colonials, now essentially in the service of their Israeli allies.
This total ignorance of history, which led to the defeat in Vietnam, is once again
rearing its head in Iraq. The consequences of the forthcoming defeat will be more farreaching in my opinion.Hopefully, it will lead to a complete reevaluation of America's role in the world with less dependence on projecting military power and more on assisting other countries economically and using the economic leverage to persuade people to see your point of view.This is essentially what the Germans and the Japanese have done since their defeats in WWII.
On a totally unrelated note, I see that Toyota is planning to double its production of the Prius Hybrid automobile in Japan to nearly 20,000 vehicles a month because of the huge demand.While our PNAC crowd was busy dreaming up world conquest by military means, Japan may very well capture the world automotive markets and make future autos less dependent on gasoline.Who do you think will emerge the winner in this race?
Did I say 'irrelevant'? Er, I meant to say 'irreverent'.