US considers UN Iraq force

[Pikache]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3187133.stm#graphic

The United States has signalled for the first time that it might accept a UN-mandated multinational force in Iraq provided it is led by an American.

US deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told a group of American journalists that one idea being considered was a multinational force under UN leadership, but that "the American would be the UN commander".

Britain and the United States - whose troops are struggling to restore law and order to Iraq - are trying to hammer out a new UN resolution which could draw in key nations like India, Pakistan, Turkey and Japan.

Mr Armitage said US officials were considering "widening decision-making" in Iraq, but he did not elaborate further.


Click here for details of the planned multi-national force
Washington insists it will not yield command and control of the US-led force in Iraq.

But the BBC‘s Justin Webb in Washington says the United States now appears to be softening its position in the face of international pressure and domestic criticism.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan suggested last week that a new Security Council resolution could be sought which gave UN blessing to the occupation force in Iraq but did not turn it into a UN operation.

Countries which opposed the US-led war in Iraq - notably France, Germany and Russia - have demanded a greater UN role, refusing to contribute troops to the current occupying force.


Mr Annan warned that the United States would find it "very difficult" to get a new UN Security Council resolution adopted on expanding military forces on the ground if it failed to boost the UN‘s role.


The United States has about 140,000 troops in Iraq, supported by about 21,000 other troops - 11,000 of them British.

Many countries have expressed a willingness to assist in Iraq, but they do not want the stigma of serving under an occupying force which has yet to win over the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

Correspondents say the proposal outlined by Mr Annan - UN endorsement but not deployment of UN forces - is similar to the formula used for the French-led intervention in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.

 

[rolandstrong]

I don‘t think it will work with a US commander (in charge of UN operations). They are not familiar with overseeing international forces...and there are doctirne conflicts with peacekeeping. There are still hurdles that need to be overcome.

 

[Gunnar]

Let me get this straight...the US wants the help of an irrelevant body, to whom they didn‘t listen in the first place, to help them get out of a jam they got themselves into?

I‘m no supporter of the UN, but if I worked in the UN I‘d laugh like h&ll.

And they wonder why they have terrorist problems when their foreign policy changes as often as the political polls.

 

[McInnes]

lol, Canadian Armed Forces, now doesnt that sound kind of aggressive to you? nonono, the gov. cant have that.

Canadian Forces (CF)

 

[Spr.Earl]

Sherwood,RELAX,SUCK BACK AN RELOAD!
Take it with a grain of salt

We have free speach also you know.

 

[Gunnar]

I haven‘t trashed the US or its people. I am however trashing the short-sightedness of the foreign policy its government chooses to follow. Even in the US, trashing the US government is a right which is specifically guaranteed by the US Constitution.

I agree with the war in Iraq. I agree that the UN is irrelevant, as has been so amply demonstrated by the recent conflict, the issues in Rwanda, the Balkans, and numerous other occasions.

However, it is hypocritical of the US to ask for help from an organization which is amply anti-US, from which they have witheld funding from for many years because of its anti-US stance, and which they have repeatedly demonstrated to be irrelevant. It was NATO that brought peace to the Balkans (led by the US), the US which ended the terrorist-supporting Taliban regime, the US which ended the irresponsible dictatorship (and the threat of WMD‘s) of Saddam Hussein.

From the UN‘s point of view, I wouldn‘t be in such a hurry to help the US after it ignored the UN‘s "valuable and sage advice". From the American point of view, I think it is WRONG to ask for help from such an ineffectual bunch of mealy-mouthed paper pushers, especially AFTER you have so amply demonstrated that they are wrong.

It is also wrong for the US to try to back out of an action they initiated: You started it, you finish it. Responsibility applies to nations no less than it applies to their population. Letting other people finish the job will only lead to a half-assed job being done, particularly since they didn‘t agree with the need to do the job in the first place.

A consistent foreign policy would do wonders for the US - where it stood on issues would be crystal clear to the world, and even if the world didn‘t like it, at least it could respect it. For example:

Communism is bad. Blockade Cuba. Most Favoured Trading Nation: Communist China.

Terrorism is bad. Stomp Afghanistan and Al-Queda. Seek rapprochement with Iran, known for widely funding terrorism and Shia radicals, and habitually smearing the US in the press worldwide.

Islamic Fundamentalism is bad. Stomp on terrorism world-wide. Saudi Arabia (which funds the Wahabi sect responsible for much of the fundamentalist nuts)is still our bestest buddy out there though, right? At least they closed the Air Base. It‘s a step.

It‘s not your job to clean up the world, and I understand that not every cockroach needs stomping right away: it‘s too costly. But you could always refuse to trade or have diplomatic relations with the countries that are actively hostile to the US. It would be a start.

Hope this clears things up for you. I‘m not slamming the greatness of a free nation, but the short-sighted policies of its leaders. Wanna slam the idiots who run my country? Be my guest.

 

[rolandstrong]

Good Post Gunnar...I generally agree.

 

[radop211tc]

The USs‘ Foreign Policy and their "Ive got the biggest gun" attitude has gotten themselves in a quagmire. If the UN lets them have their lead man run the show and pull everything US related out of Iraq,MAYBE the UN might be effective, bringing law and order but a clear signal was sent when they bombed the UN Bldg.
Iraq reminds me of Lebanon, where foreign Arabs poured in there. I spoke with a Syrian Commando once and by himself, he went to Beirut for one reason, to take out the US due to their foreign policy and their friendship with Israel.
As before, in the Arab Street its not an Iraq War,its an Arab war but their penned Saddam loyalists and now for the sympathy factor its Al Qaeda.
Democracy at the end of a missile, doesnt hold well for a poor Iraqi who lost his whole family cuz the US thought it was a target.

Tc...
VVV