American "end to major combat" agenda

Victor

This is an 'old' piece, but as I read it the Americans don't want the war to end until there is an Iraqi government - that way, the USA gets to make peace with Iraq and therefore isn't responsible for Iraq's old debt's (as occupying power). Hence the declaration was for an "end to major combat", not an end to the "war".

http://www.thepost.ie/web/DocumentView/did-274592750-pageUrl--2FThe-Newspaper-2FSundays-Paper-2FNews-2FWorld-2FAll-World.asp

Bush to eat humble pie
21/09/03 00:00

By Tina-Marie O'Neill
Last year, United States President George W Bush ridiculed the United Nations, asking whether the organisation remained "relevant" to international security.

On Tuesday, the president will have to eat his words as he addresses the UN General Assembly to plead for its help in the reconstruction and policing of Iraq.

How much the president is willing to sacrifice politically will determine the UN response - and could spell the end of Bush's chances of re-election next year. The response of the Iraqi public will also be critical.

At home, popular support for the president received a blow last week, when Bush admitted that his administration "had no evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the September 11 terror attacks", despite sending Secretary of State Colin Powell to the UN in March to convince the world to the contrary.

A Washington Post poll published earlier this month found that 70 per cent of Americans had been under the impression that the former Iraqi president was behind the 2001 attacks on the US.

The Bush administration did nothing to suggest otherwise until its volte-face last week.

A second Washington Post / ABC News poll found six out of ten Americans don't support Bush's request to Congress for $87 billion dollars to fund the Iraqi operation.

In a further assault on Bush's credibility, former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix last week attacked the American and British "spin and hype" over Iraq's alleged possession of banned weapons, a claim used to justify the invasion of the Persian Gulf state.

Blix told the BBC that he believed Iraq had destroyed its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago and Britain and the US had decided to wage war on the basis of now-discredited intelligence information.

The American commander of US and British forces in Iraq, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, last week admitted that the coalition had "made mistaken assumptions, had inadequate regional expertise and was not prepared for the extent of the collapse of the Iraqi infrastructure".

While the UN wants to see the situation in Iraq improve, many member states want to see the US sweat it out a little longer. Critics of the Bush administration in the General Assembly also don't want to help Bush's re-election campaign. The aftermath of the US-led war has proved to the assembly that the last remaining global superpower still needs the UN.

Suggestions that a UN resolution authorising a multinational force in Iraq could inaugurate a new world order are a little far-fetched, but indicate that the organisation is far from "irrelevant".

The US demand that UN- authorised forces report to the US army commander in Iraq is not an issue. Traditionally, the largest military contributor to any UN peacekeeping operation has maintained command.

Key to any UN assistance is how far Bush is willing to surrender political decision-making.Troops and financial assistance will go hand-in-hand with political involvement.

The Bush administration is also under pressure to transfer authority and sovereignty to the Iraqis - though a hurried transfer is unlikely to be a democratic one.

Even if the UN authorises the transformation of the US occupation into a multinational UN force, it will be in vain if the Iraqi people don't accept it. Many Iraqis believe that the harsh UN sanctions against their country were responsible for the deaths of up to 500,000 children from disease and malnutrition.

They also say that a UN force under US military command and answering to the Bush administration would be merely a puppet of the occupation forces.

Some observers believe that such views were behind the Baghdad suicide bombing that killed the UN representative in Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, and more than 20 of his colleagues.

UN members are concerned that authorising troops to help clean up the mess created by the US and Britain would set a precedent in international affairs and damage the UN's credibility.

However, neo-conservatives on Capitol Hill last week still maintained that the coalition was making good progress in Iraq and did not need to allow the UN too many concessions.