US needs help in Iraq

Wook

US 'needs help in Iraq'


US forces are seen as occupiers by many Iraqis
The Bush administration is coming under growing domestic pressure over its Iraq strategy amid continuing attacks on US forces in the country.

The US Senate has voted unanimously to urge President George W Bush to consider asking Nato and the United Nations for help in rebuilding Iraq.

The non-binding resolution said that while it was in the interests of the United States to remain engaged in Iraq, conditions there posed a serious threat to American troops.

Public opinion in the US appears to reflect this disquiet, with polls showing a marked decline in support for the Bush administration's policy on Iraq.

The Senate vote came after General Tommy Franks, until recently at the helm of US-led coalition forces in Iraq, warned that American forces might have to remain in the country far longer than anticipated.

I'm now concerned that we have the world's best-trained soldiers serving as policemen in what seems to be a shooting gallery

Senator Edward Kennedy
General Franks said attacks on US soldiers, which have killed more than 30 since the war was declared over, were occurring at a rate of 10 to 25 a day.

Friday saw the US pull most of its troops out of a police station in the Iraqi town of Falluja, about 50 kilometres (30 miles) west of the capital Baghdad, a day after protests at the continued US military presence there.

An American military spokesman said about six soldiers would remain at the station to support the new police force in the town, where there have been frequent clashes between Iraqis and US forces.

Iraqi police officers had threatened to resign if the Americans did not leave the station, as they felt joint patrols with American forces placed them at risk of attack.

Overnight, a series of three mortar strikes were launched on an American base in the town of Ramadi, 100 kilometres (60 miles) west of Baghdad, although there were no injuries reported.

And the US military said two Iraqi civilians were wounded in crossfire following a rocket-propelled grenade attack on a US patrol near Baghdad airport.

'Share the burden'

Senators from the opposition Democratic Party - many of whom supported the decision to launch the war in Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein's regime - are expressing deep concern about events on the ground.

They are also raising questions about the administration's citing of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction as a justification for the decision to go to war. No such weapons have been found in Iraq.

The guts of the work will still have to be done by the United States, Great Britain and the original members of the coalition

Secretary of State Colin Powell
The Democrats urged Mr Bush to mend fences with France and Germany - key Nato members who were firmly opposed to the war.

Senator John Kerry, who hopes to challenge Mr Bush for the presidency next year, said: "We now know that the administration went to war without a thorough plan to win the peace.

"It is time to face that truth and change course, to share the post-war burden internationally for the sake of our country."

Senator Carl Levin, leading Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said it was "a mystery" why the Bush administration had not made a formal request for Nato forces in Iraq.

He expressed the hope that soldiers wearing Nato insignia would not be targeted in Iraq with the same ferocity as their American counterparts.

Reluctance

But there appears to be a marked reluctance among other nations to commit troops to support US and British forces in Iraq.

Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted there was uncertainty about the level of support the US and Britain could expect.

"I can't give you the exact number of nations or how many troops are going to be committed," he told CNN.

"The guts of the work will still have to be done by the United States, Great Britain and the original members of the coalition."

There is also concern about the cost of the US commitment to Iraq.

The Senate warned that the final bill for reconstruction would run into tens of billions of dollars over several years, and projected that Iraqi oil revenues will not cover those costs.

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said that the cost of continuing military operations in Iraq is running at $3.9bn a month, higher than anticipated.


personal note: Support of the UN or EU to help out the coalition that created this mess? I don't think so.
Who would carry the cost? But then again...who would help the Iraq people to build up their government ? Will we blame the US afterwards of building another Israel ?
But senator John Kerry's comment was revealing..'"It is time to face that truth and change course, to share the post-war burden internationally for the sake of our country." (note the 'OUR' country and not their country)

The Saint

India has refused to send troops to Iraq after being requested by the US to do so. They said that they wouldnt go in without a UN mandate. I guess this is what happens when you piss all of your buddies off.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3063465.stm

I think this exerpt sums it up quite well:
"Opponents of the move pointed out that India would have to pay to send its own troops into a country where, they argue, the US has not yet worked out how to establish stability. "

Sparks

So one week it's "Bring 'em on" and the next it's "Help!" ?
Hmph.
:rolleyes:

The Saint

I would like to think that most countries would refuse to send troops without UN authority but I think that some threats and dollars will bring them in especailly from Eastern European countries and other not so wealthy countries. I wonder will Bertie offer some peace keepers?

Sparks

I don't think he legally can (thank the gods and little fishies) as
1) There's still a war on there, it hasn't been declared legally over yet;
2) There's no UN mandate for peacekeeping;
3) There's no way in hell he'd get support for it in the Dail, even from his own side.

I sure as hell hope he doesn't try, I feel dirty enough knowing that an Irish company is working in the oil fields over there, I could do without having friends of mine wandering around in blue berets there as well.

Turnip

Irish troops should go in and help stabilise the country. That's what they're paid to do. Lebanon was far more dangerous and our lads did a fantastic job there by all accounts. The government should ask for US investment in return.

Sparks

Turnip, perhaps you're not reading.
They cannot go in, even discarding the fact that they should not go in.
And they are not paid to enforce another nation's occupation of yet another nation, in direct violation of our military neutrality and the Irish Constitution.

Clintons Cat

My view is while bush and blair are tied up in Iraq they cant go kicking the **** out of some other third world country in the pretense that it has some strategic global significance/Weapons of mass destruction/****ing great stockpiles of natural resources.
*Delete as applicable.

Let the ****ers rebuild Iraq,you know stuff like making water come out of the taps again first before they go kicking over any other sandcastles.

Turnip

That the UN security council would authorize military action against Iraq and then refuse to send a peacekeeping force to stabilise the country and save lives just serves to highlight how absurd the whole setup is. Thank god for the US and thank god that Blair does not suffer from the same disgusting case of moral cowardice that other whinging left wing idots do.

Sparks

That the UN security council would authorize military action against Iraq

They didn't authorise military action.

and then refuse to send a peacekeeping force to stabilise the country and save lives

They didn't refuse - the US refused to let them do so.

Thank god for the US and thank god that Blair does not suffer from the same disgusting case of moral cowardice that other whinging left wing idots do.

And now we're at the stage where the line seperating legitimate right-wing thought and trolling gets all blurry....

BKtje

Originally posted by Wook
US 'needs help in Iraq'

-snip-

'"It is time to face that truth and change course, to share the post-war burden internationally for the sake of our country." (note the 'OUR' country and not their country)

Surely he's talking about the US and not Iraq. Our country being the United States. As it is 'Our' (meaning US) is paying a **** load to do what they are doing in Iraq. What i think he's saying is share the costs. Not sure who'll help em share the costs tho, any one feel like going door to door with a tin can? ::rolleyes: :ninja:

DancesWithChimp

Hehe, maybe he actually was referring to "their" country, Iraq, as "OUR" country.
They technically own the country in every way including its oil wealth, as of resolution 1483.

Sparks

paying a **** load to do what they are doing in Iraq

Actually, the other coalition partners were billed for any weapons fired from US aircraft, and the proceeds from Iraqi oil sales will be docked for the next decade or so to pay for it all.
The US won't suffer financial hardship from all of this, oddly enough. :rolleyes:

DancesWithChimp

Originally posted by Turnip
Thank god for the US and thank god that Blair does not suffer from the same disgusting case of moral cowardice that other whinging left wing idots do.

So you are thankful that thousands of Iraqis were killed and the suffering of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis has increased as a result of the moral courage of the US and UK?

Are you also thankful to the US and UK for their moral courage in supporting Saddam Hussein through the worst of his atrocities as he terrorised his domestic opponents and through his war with Iran in which over a million died in one of the most senseless wars of this century, and also thankful for their help in his aquisition of terrible unconventional weapons?

I'm struggling to figure out what you think you are thankful for...

shotamoose

If it wasn't such a horrible situation in Iraq it would be funny watching Bush et al struggling with the previously alien concept that your actions have consequences, frequently consequences you did not intend. We already knew that they were greedy, thuggish liers, but now we can see they are incompetent cheapskates too.

Their dream situation - running Iraq on the cheap while milking it for all it's worth and pretending to set up a 'genuine' Iraqi government - is proving implausible if not impossible. Iraq is too big, too fractured, too furious to be the lucrative desert playground the neocons presumably fancied, but they're so blinded by greed and pride they won't do the decent thing, ie pull out their army and help the UN send the thousands of troops, administrative and humanitarian personnel needed to get Iraq on the road to actual freedom and democracy, rather than this Mad Max style free market paradise.

And surprise surprise, not many other countries are all that keen on helping them out. Why should they, when their views were never taken into consideration by a 'Coalition' hell-bent on war whatever anybody else thought?

Hobbes

It was intresting to read Salam Pax's take on the occupation in comparing the British to the US.

British - Relaxed. Non-lethal guns, not pointed at the people.

US - automatic weapons pointed at people, shooting at the first sign of hassle.

AJ even showed one incident where a US solider opened fire on a car that was trying to over take thier van. He was screaming "Stay back", like they would understand.

It may be that Bush wants to invade another country and can't do it while the US forces are tied up in Iraq.

It is not a case of manpower. The single thing that is upsetting the political cart for Bush is the death of US soliders. Nothing kills your political career faster in the US. You can bomb the fuk out of a country but if US soliders die you ain't getting re-elected.

Michele

Italy sent troops to IRAQ without even a UN mandate. Another demonstration of the true colours of our (Italy ) so called prime minister. I don't know what to hope for but I believe that when you bring about death, this what you deserve in return. And despite being sorry for the death of young soldiers I cannot forget that the same youngs are there to kill.