Long term Saddam out of power is a good thing, for the world, for Iraqis. Clearly the planning of post-Saddam was inadequate. Involving the UN is what is best for Iraq at this time. Who is begging? The U.S. is going to submit a plan to the UN calling for their involvement, plans change and the U.S. is adopting to the situation. You portray that one is weak because they aren’t stubborn, flexibility is actually a strength and what has made the U.S. into a ‘powerhouse’. That’s my view Malik and trying to degrade the U.S. with words like ‘begging’ and saying U.S. soldiers aren’t ‘brave’ are childish tactics which I think your above.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Involving the UN is what is best for Iraq at this time.
[/QUOTE]
Why not before that? Take for example the question of WMD. The UN inspectors found nothing and you people ridiculed the inspectors and the UN back then - that is on record in this forum. Now after nearly six months of military activties and occupation of Iraq your occupation soldiers have also found no WMD, proving the UN were absolutely correct and you people were wrong.
Now belatedly after getting one bloody nose after another (as also correctly predicted by many in this forum), you are running back to the same UN you dismissed as irrelevant then. Even I never thought the US would be running scared so soon, given the long years they endured in Vietnam.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by AvgAmericanGirl: *
How can U.S. bow out gracefully?
[/QUOTE]
Now the problem is not necessarily that the Americans are there. It is that the Iraqis don't like what the Americans are doing there. One solution to this would be to politely ask Rumsfeld to not come to work tomorrow, or ever again.. but the catch to that is that we would have to replace him with a strong, sensible leader, ie, not Wolfowitz or any of the other neocon geniuses involved thus far.
** Originally posted by underthedome: **
Involving the UN is what is best for Iraq at this time.
** Originally asked/responded by Malik: **
Why not before that?
The fact is that the US military and government are about as honest and forthcoming as any government and military on earth. And the simple answer to Malik’s question is found in a “brutally honest” report prepared for the U.S. military Joint Chiefs of Staff which “blames post-war unrest in Iraq on hurried, inadequate planning before the invasion, defense officials said on Wednesday.”
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3381273
Read the article for a pretty good self-assessment of our military’s thinking at the present time. If you do, you will see that the war planning was believed to be top notch but that post war “Phase IV” planning is now believed to be inadequate. Faced with a situation that was not anticipated and for which we had not planned adequately, a reassessment is being made. Generally speaking, I think most people (like myself) have always stated and understood that the UN is good at doing certain things and is not so good at doing other things. To now try to involve the UN in Iraq to do the things the UN is good at (or at least can do better than we can do alone) makes perfect sense. It is not a question of either the UN or the US. It is a question of how to integrate UN activities with US activities to make the situation better for the Iraqi people.
Some will undoubtedly jump all over this “brutally honest” report and claim that it shows weakness of the US. Others (me included) believe that it shows the strength of the US. The ability to and the responsiveness to honestly assess and revise plans, whether it is in business, government or the military, is critical to accomplishing many objectives. The worst thing a person can do when faced with unforeseen difficulties or setbacks is to dig their heels in the ground and proceed full speed ahead with the original plan. Sort of “D*mn the torpedos – Full speed ahead” type of thinking.
Of course, for anyone to believe that this kind of a thought process and evaluation is ongoing at the highest levels of our government and military would require them to accept that the objective we have is truly to make a better Iraq for the Iraqi people.
MV, I agree with you about the report.. except the part about this not being anticipated. It was, of course, not to the detail, but this was predicted and rejected even in the broadest and most hypothetical/qualified terms.
I think Ive got it
It is beatuiful irony that the US and its stooge the British are stuck in an almighty quagmire and is made to suffer even more humiliation than Vietnam and are getting one bloody nose after another while begging the UN for help because they are not brave enough to handle Iraq on it's own so they are running back to the UN which they declared irrevalent while going against the will of 80% of the members of the Security Council and world opinion.
Does that cover it?
Come on guys let's all help the US admin out and send a family member to fight Iraq, you pick your side.
Go team U S A.
Thappo as 5Abi said 50 “nations” supported the US over Iraq, so the US should be able to cope. I am sure the military forces of Honduras, Micronesia, and Mongolia etc are doing a great job in Iraq. 
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Malik73: *
Why should the UN and the other countries of the world pay for this American mess? **Is the US not brave enough to stay in Iraq on it's own with it's British and Mongolian allies?*
[/QUOTE]
Obviously NOT, as their begging shows.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Gupta: *
Obviously NOT, as their begging shows.
[/QUOTE]
there are enough countries willing to send troops including pakistan.
Just look at the claims of the US military leaders, and how they are blaming all sorts of supposed enemies for the mess they have got themselves in Iraq, and begging for more troops to be sent…
The top U.S. commander in Iraq said Thursday he needs more international forces to deal with an array of potential security threats, including “al-Qaida terrorists, Iranian fighters and clashes between ethnic and religious militias”.](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030904/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=716)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
Whose bombs destroyed Iraq's infrastructure in the first place, and whose bombs and bullets have killed over 6000 Iraqi people since launching the illegal invasion?
Why should the UN and the other countries of the world pay for this American mess? Is the US not brave enough to stay in Iraq on it's own with it's British and Mongolian allies?
[/QUOTE]
Malik73,
I didn't mean monetarily. We should pay for rebuilding the infrastructure. No argument.
My thinking was more on the lines of sinse the Iraqi's pretty much dispise us... repair work has been sabatoged, soldiers still being killed, as well as Iraqi's. We need some people in there that they are able to trust, which is what I meant by multi-national. U.S. bear the brunt of expense but multi-forces with equal voices in charge.
Need some Russians, Germans and French people in there..though doesn't look as if the Germans will be helping. Need some friendly forces from nearby Muslim countries probobly also, though that could be risky if their forces include persons of fanatical persuasions..
I also think the Iraqi's need and deserve the largest voice, but would be a mistake to completely pull U.S. out of there with Saddam still out there, because then the Iraqi's that somewhat supported taking down Saddam's will be endangered.
And I'm sure the powers that be won't be hiring me any time soon. ;)
Re: Re: US goes begging to the UN and the world for help in Iraq
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Akif: *
I wonder why Pakistans name keeps popping up in this issue. Seems like we are looking at another possible round of carrot dangling by the US administration, or perhaps a subdued form of threat of possible reduction in aid, or sanctions of some sort, if Pakistan repeatedly refuses. Same seems to be the case for Turkey.
Pakistan is already deeply involved with the UN in places where its contribution is much more needed. In Iraq, any contributing country will be simply doing mop-up duty for the US commanders, and it would be a shame if the UN gives in to a forced US leadership. The same UN that was conveniently ignored by the US before the war, cannot be used for cleanup purposes, or more likely, for target practice on behalf of the US.
[/QUOTE]
Akif,
You might be right so far as mop up duty. But in the long run, wouldn't the Iraqi people be better served if countries such as Pakistan helped to secure stability?
My thinking is that denying the assistance of the U.N. because U.S. disagreed with U.N. reccomendations previously is spiteful and causes more harm to the Iraqi people than punishment to the U.S.
Re: Re: Re: US goes begging to the UN and the world for help in Iraq
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by AvgAmericanGirl: *
..You might be right so far as mop up duty. But in the long run, wouldn't the Iraqi people be better served if countries such as Pakistan helped to secure stability? ....
[/QUOTE]
why not utilise armies of "50 countries" of the "alliance?
Average,
Care to tell us why do you think the Iraqi people despise the US occupation forces?
This article in the London Times sums up my argument about the US begging at the doors of the UN to help bail them out.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-803512,00.html
America asks UN to help sort out Iraq
PRESIDENT BUSH abruptly reversed the central thrust of his Iraq policy yesterday, turning to the UN to help to extricate the US from its increasingly costly postwar plight. American officials began circulating the text of a new draft resolution designed to widen the role of the previously spurned UN, spreading the financial and human burden of rebuilding Iraq. The move marked the Administration’s most dramatic change of direction since the start of the war. Last year, when the UN refused to back military action against Saddam Hussein, Mr Bush said it risked “irrelevance”. But faced with mounting casualties, rising costs and increased unrest, the White House has been forced to seek help from a body reviled by Washington conservatives. The volte-face coincided with a Congressional Budget Office report that America’s military commitment to Iraq was unsustainable at present levels. It said it must spend billions more, reduce the force in Iraq or spread its forces too thinly elsewhere. A separate internal Pentagon report admitted that the prewar planning for securing the peace had been hurried and inadequate.
Dana Allin, an expert on transatlantic relations at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said the reversal represented “a defeat for the idea that the US can do this more or less on its own”. But, despite the American climbdown, it was far from clear that other UN Security Council countries would approve the plan. British officials predicted that France, the target of venomous American rhetoric for failing to support the war, would try to extract a hefty political price. The draft text envisages an American commander retaining overall control of a multinational military force. But in a series of political and military concessions outlined to the UN by Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, the force would report regularly to the Security Council in New York, and a “unified” command structure would include officers from countries offering troops. General Powell said that the UN would be invited to bring its “great skills” to three key areas where it would be given an expanded role: reconstruction, generating overseas aid, and creating a new electoral system. In another significant shift, General Powell said that the draft resolution invited Iraq’s Governing Council to propose a timetable for taking over the running of the country. Putting the Iraqis in the driving seat has been one of the key demands of European governments.
Britain, which holds the UN Security Council presidency, expects the text to be debated within a fortnight and to be put to the vote in mid-September, ahead of a UN General Assembly meeting to be attended by Mr Bush and other world leaders. The British are again expected to act as go-betweens to bridge the divide between America and continental Europe. “It is in everyone’s interests to put the past behind us and work together on this,” a senior official said. “I think we will get it (the resolution) passed.” General Powell has telephoned his British, French, Russian and German counterparts and described the initial reaction as “positive”. Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said: “No matter where you stood on the decision to confront the threat, we now all have a stake in helping the Iraqi people.” With a UN mandate, India has said it may provide up to 17,000 troops, making it the second largest contributor after America. Pakistan is considering sending 10,000 predominantly Muslim troops, and more could come from key states such as Turkey. On a smaller scale, a Polish-led multinational force yesterday took over command of Iraq’s south-central zone from US Marines. Washington also hopes its change of course will encourage financial burden-sharing. An international donors’ conference to provide some of the billions of dollars required for reconstruction is scheduled for Madrid next month. Washington’s change of heart was prompted by four car bomb attacks in the past month, the deaths of 67 American soldiers from hostile action since the combat officially ended on May 1, and costs of about $1 billion a week. Iraqis have grown increasingly angry at the coalition’s failure to ensure security. In the US, polls show declining support for America’s military presence in Iraq and for Mr Bush, who faces re-election next year. The Democrats’ presidential candidates have increasingly attacked Mr Bush’s Iraq policies, and senior Republican congressmen have started pressing him to come clean about the costs
Something else I read in the London Times today…
Richard Perle, the leading neo-conservative thinker and adviser to Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, trumpeted in March that Saddam Hussein would go quickly and “in a parting irony, he will take the UN down with him”. What will die, Mr Perle said, “was the fantasy of the UN as the foundation of a new world order”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-803473,00.html
:rotfl: Poor Neo-cons now having to eat their own words.
Darwin applies to politics.. hopefully these fools will soon become extinct.
lolzz…
**Hey, let’s call in the UN**, John O’Farrell, The Guardian, 5 September 2003
…] In fact, many other countries have already been persuaded to deploy troops, including Lithuania, Honduras and Mongolia. Even the Albanian army is now in Iraq. Ha! What chance does the enemy stand now? The Albanians have promised to bring in their army’s mobile unit as soon as they get her back from the donkey sanctuary. Oh, and the Lithuanian army has promised to bring his friend.
…] If the United Nations really wants to do something for the world it should leave George Bush to clear up the mess he created in Iraq and let him suffer the electoral consequences at the polls next year. This is a win-win situation; don’t deploy any troops and help bring about regime change in the rogue state of America. “Oh they won’t get rid of me that easily …” says Dubya. "I’m too clever for that. I’m George W Bush. The W stands for ‘smart’. "
Reminds me of an olde saying....
The larger you are..the harder you fall...
Re: Re: Re: US goes begging to the UN and the world for help in Iraq
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by AvgAmericanGirl: *
Akif,
You might be right so far as mop up duty. But in the long run, wouldn't the Iraqi people be better served if countries such as Pakistan helped to secure stability?
[/QUOTE]
Iraq might be better served but I would think Pakistan would need to look at how it would serve their own interests first. Iraq is a very dangerous place at the moment and unlike the US or UK Pakistan won't reap any big financial spin offs to offset the losses of it's soldiers - neither has their role as UN policemen got them much positive publicity in the past.