It appears the Bush Administration is preparing to pull the plug on its efforts to win U.N. backing for a multinational peacekeeping force in Iraq:
U.S. May Drop Security Council Resolution on Iraq
Despite divisions in the 15-member U.N. Security Council, U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte on Tuesday ruled out making any substantial changes to the Bush administration's draft resolution on Iraq.Consequently, council diplomats said the United States had to decide soon whether to drop the effort entirely or push for a split vote in the council that might limit its impact.
Nine affirmative votes are needed to pass a resolution. The Times predicts that if the administration pushes for a vote, France, Germany, Russia, China and Syria would abstain, while Britain, Spain and Bulgaria would vote yes.
This means the administration would have to pick up yes votes from at least five of the remaining six members -- Chile, Mexico, Pakistan, Angola, Cameroon and Guinea.
This, not coincidentally, is the almost exactly the same UNSC math the U.S. faced before the war. You probably remember what happened: Shrub talked some big talk about putting cards down on the table, then folded his hand. We can probably expect something similar this time around -- although maybe with less big talk.
When Bush returned to the U.N. this summer, I had hoped it would mark a turning point -- not so much for the war in Iraq, but for the neocons' war on the multilateral, rules-based system created at the end of World War II. The other powers, I thought, had a chance to coax America back into that system, by making Bush an offer he couldn't refuse -- real money and real troops in exchange for real influence (plus a little of the gravy currently running down Halliburton's chin.)
But any bargain along those lines is going to have to wait for another administration. It's obvious now the Bushies were never negotiating in good faith. Whether that's because the whole exercise was just a con job for domestic political consumption, or whether it's because the neocons were able to block any meaningful concessions, is almost beside the point.
Because it's also clear that, even if the administration had desired a deal, the other powers either wouldn't or couldn't pay the price. Once India, Pakistan and Bangladesh took troop contributions off the table, and once the Europeans made it clear they weren't going to come anywhere close to matching the administration's financial expectations, there was no longer any point in seriously pursuing a new resolution.
So events have passed the negotiations by. The Turks have cut their own deal with the Americans -- $8.5 billion in loans for something like 10,000 troops, which works out to $850,000 per troop. Nice work if you can get it.
Ten thousand troops -- even if they were led by Xenophon himself - aren't nearly enough to get the U.S. Army off the Iraqi hook. And without a new UNSC resolution, this month's Iraq donors' conference in Madrid is likely to be a miserly affair.
But the Bushies apparently have decided that they (and the Army) will just have to make do. And if "making do" means a bunch more American kids have to die, well, at least Halliburton is still in the gravy.
Ideology conquers common sense. They are like the Zealots of Masada. Except the neo-cons have dragged a whole nation into their true believer’s fantasy.
I too had hoped that sanity would prevail and "W" would have at least made 1 concession or something. I guess he knows he's basically SOL in the world any way so why try...
I wonder how Colin Powel can deal with it sometimes.
BTW, king broke, I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one :)
You really have to wonder about sending Turkish troops into Iraq. Even if they're used strictly around Baghdad and kept out of the north, you know the Kurds are just going to love it.
I would hate to be in the shoes of the delegates from Chile, etc. They are about to get an offer they can't refuse.
In any case, the resolution that Bush wants calls for constitution writing, then elections. Somehow I suspect that real events on planet Earth will render the whole thing moot.
I would hate to be in the shoes of the delegates from Chile, etc. They are about to get an offer they can't refuse.
I'm reminded of the Don Henley song "Dirty Laundry - when you cross the Godfather with a lawyer, he'll make you an offer you can't understand."
Trying for a little levity tonight ...
Turks in Iraq opens a whole new ballgame.
Turks not only have their issues with Kurds, they used to run the whole damn country, and these memories linger. Turkey is a country I've visited, and love, but I would not like to be on the wrong side of the Turks, they are very serious people.
They know how to run things on the ground, something we don't have a clue at.
Can it be we're seeing the real beginning of the Neocon strategy, divying up the ME between the Turks, Israelis, and ..., while America distributes the loot?
"They know how to run things on the ground, something we don't have a clue at."
If you look at the late Ottoman Empire it might be more accurate to say the Turks know how to run things _into_ the ground - the title The Sick Man of Europe was not given to the Turks just for kicks.* These were the guys who ceded most of their economy and a whole shitload of internal control over to Europeans through the capitulations and the berats. Also, very few Arabs look back to Turkish rule as halycon days of wine and roses. The Kurds still get raped silly by the Turks, but the Arabs remember Turkish control very unhappily. I doubt they will flock to the Turks, especially when the Turks are obvious puppets of the US.
* I will grant that Ataturk simply kicked ass as a leader. But historically, the Turks haven't been a real organizational powerhouse for about 400 years.
slightly OT: Rumsfeld apparently wasn't informed about the deck chairs on the Titanic. being shifted. And he's pissy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58726-2003Oct7.html
I've been having this thought since the Plame Affair became fairly public. The assumption has been Rove+PNAC went after Plame, and there was some sort of internal dissension about this. But I find it far more likely that the dissension is between PNAC and Rove. The PNAC crew are idealogues. Rove is a politician. As cursor.org mentioned when the New Yorker profile of him appreare, he puts politics before policy. Winning the game is most important to him.
And the neocons are losing Iraq. And Bush is losing in the polls. Before the spit hit the fan in the last couple weeks, I was seeing articles indicating that the administration was splitting along these lines.
If this is true, then Rumsfeld may be getting the boot. Which may mean Bush is siding with Rove.
Phalamir, the degeneracy of the Ottoman Empire is noted, but with all the problems, running any empire for 400 years is not something possible for most peoples. It take a sense of unity, and purpose, that the Turks have, IMHO, and the Arabs lack, and not only the Arabs.
I thought I agreed with you about the Arabs not necessarily welcoming the Turks with open arms. My point was that the Turks would handle the problems differently.
An interesting development in the latest round of US/UN discussions is the way Annan stood up and said this has got to be rock solid because I am not sending any more UN people out to Iraq to die, almost unprecented for a general secretary to get involved in this way according to the reports I read.
I'm not surprised the US want to take back their resolution from UNSC. This is how Shrub negotiates.
- Kofi Annan declared it would fall quite short of anything serious.
- Shrub did not make one f'g concession, the central role he sees for the UN is overseeing elections. Why not have the UN ditribute icecreams too.
- Even if this resolution was voted, it would not magically turn the tens of thousands of troops and the billions that are needed. That would have been a disaster for Shrub : he goes back to the UN, gets its resolution 15-0 and then nothing happens on the ground.
- I'm not sure Chile and other UNSC people would vote for this resolution anyway. My guess is just about everyone is counting the days until Shrub gets the boot, and will play on timings. The man is certainly not very popular outside the US.
From my perspective, Shrub never had any serious intention to get the UN on board. He could have gotten some UN backing by making some concession, but negotiated in blatant bad faith. Bad choice, for everybody.
and xenophon couldn't do much with the kurds either.
First post here - love the blog!
Bush just wants to be seen as a winner (even though he's a loser) and has no interest in policy so he is certainly siding with Rove. He won't care what he says to get re-elected.
On the UN front I imagine that Annan had respect for representative Vieira de Mello (who seemed to be a real stateman and a tremendous loss to the world) and is probably very angry with Bush Co that his death happened because of their pre-emptive war.
Well, Xenophon wasn't that great a general either. The Greek phalange was mighty powerful, mostly, and he was competent. And a good writer, most of all.
If the Neo-cons are Zealots, fine with me. Like at Masada, let them commit mass-suicide election day when Dean's numbers will rise.
Turks: they can be tough and violent, definitely. The Ottoman economy was shit since 17th century, so their decline isn't surprising. And they still haven't given up their old Empire dreams, I'd say, probably even more than the French or the English Originally, the Empire was very efficiently led and designed; then it went downhill. That doesn't mean modern Turkey can't be formidable.
It's sure the Kurds won't like that and war is probable. The only good thing I can see is that Turkey will appear as the undemocratic anti-human right regime it is, notably thanks to serious corruption and military junta - they never really gave up power, alas -, and they will lose any hope to join the European Union for several decades. That's bad for them because there was a chance they might reform their military, if the main parties had tried it hard enough. But they alas prefer to stick to crass nationalism rather than progressive reforms.
Hmm, as far as Annan and UN is concerned, it's probably worse than that. I tend to think Vieira de Mello might have been Annan's pick as next Secretary General, and was the favorite of many others, UN officials and foreign nations. He was clearly one of the ablest persons to handle the post, for sure.
Ultimately, even if you're not meant to speak your mind, there comes a time where you have to speak up, as Annan did, when you see the biggest power trying to destroy your own organisation.
the resolution that Bush wants calls for constitution writing, then elections
I have never understood this demand for a constitution before elections can be had and we can leave Iraq. Many countries don't have formal constitutions, Israel being one of them.
I think we ought to make "$850,000 per troop" a new, and ominpresent, democratic talking point. Treated in the same way the $87 billion request was (that is, how many teachers could $850,000 pay for?), I think it could be very very powerful.
I have never understood this demand for a constitution before elections can be had and we can leave Iraq. Many countries don't have formal constitutions, Israel being one of them.
Our coalition allies the British are another country without a written constitution. They seem to handle democracy just fine without it.
By the way, I read a variety of news reports yesterday that the Iraq Provisional Government has voted NOT to accept Turkish troops. Anyone know how this jibes with this recent announcement by the Bush Administration to send troops?
When the pre-war Iraq resolution got scuttled, the UN ambassador from one of those 6 countries said something like "What are they going to do, bomb us?" about not going along with Bush on the UN resolution for war. Bush has weakened us.
Turkey sends troops, and Will Safire gets a hard-on.
Turkey's government does not insist on a new U.N. resolution stripping control from the U.S. and Britain before lending a hand
Which is true : 8.5 gigabucks are enough, no need for a UN resolution.
Anyone want to take bets on when the PUK and KDP join forces with the resistance to kill Turks?
The Kurds need to send as many Turks as possible back to Ankara in body bags as soon as possible. I hope you all realize that the US is setting the fuze for a civil war.
Latest is that the Iraqis in the Council have made it abundantly clear to the dipshits in the US that NO TROOPS from ANY frontline country will be accepted. No Jordanians, No Kuwaitis, no Iranians, no Syrians and no fucking Turks.
The council is "still debating" because they have yet to find a way to get throuygh Bremer's thick head that he better not let them in or the will be TROUBLE. This may take some time.
But at the very least it is a sign of some independent minds learning to work together in Iraq. The only problem for Bushco is that the more successful they become, the less the neocons will like it.
There are NO good ways out of Iraq for the US, they ALL end in defeat and/or chaos.
right goddamn on, I just hope people outside the blogosphere can see with this kind of transparency, I often end up getting sidetracked listening to talk of the war/politics/world in general at social events ect, and I find myself jumping in and being looked at like I'm speaking another language, it ammounts to spend 20 mins bringing people up to date and explaining what that news report really meant or how it lied or the transparency of the whole affair, and then get treated like a whacko, but I digress and will shut up now, for another thread anyway