PDA

View Full Version : Bush may turn to UN in search for Iraq solution



tinknocker44
05-22-2007, 09:56 PM
This would be another slap to the chimps mug. First dealing with a terrorist state then asking for UN help. Just more lies from the pugs.




Bush may turn to UN in search for Iraq solution


If troop surge fails, strategy is to involve other nations under UN umbrella

Simon Tisdall
Wednesday May 23, 2007
The Guardian


A UN peacekeeper. Photograph: Eduardo Munoz/Reuters

The Bush administration is developing plans to "internationalise" the Iraq crisis, including an expanded role for the United Nations, as a way of reducing overall US responsibility for Iraq's future and limiting domestic political fallout from the war as the 2008 election season approaches.
The move comes amid rising concern in Washington that President George Bush's controversial Baghdad security surge, led by the US commander, General David Petraeus, is not working and that Iran is winning the clandestine battle for control of Iraq.

"Petraeus is brilliant. But he is the captain of a sinking ship," said a former senior administration official who questioned whether Iraq's divided political leadership could prevent a descent into chaos. "Iraq's government is a mobile phone number that doesn't answer. Iraq probably can't be fixed."

Although sectarian killings have fallen in Baghdad since the surge began in February, the level of violence across the country remains broadly unchanged. But the White House is fiercely resisting calls from Democrats and some Republicans to scrap the operation and set a timetable for a troop withdrawal.

The former official, who is familiar with administration thinking, predicted Mr Bush would instead ask Congress to agree a six-month extension of the surge after Gen Petraeus presented his "progress report" in early September.

While insisting that no decision had yet been taken on an extension, the Pentagon announced last week that 35,000 soldiers from 10 army brigades had been told they could expect to be deployed to Iraq by the end of the year. That would enable the US to maintain heightened troop levels of about 160,000 soldiers through to next spring.

According to an analysis published by Hearst Newspapers yesterday, the number of combat troops could almost double - to 98,000 - by the end of the year if arriving and departing combat brigades overlap. By the same calculation, the overall total including support troops could top 200,000 - an increase the report said amounted to a "second surge".

Mr Bush will sweeten the pill by pursuing a series of steps intended to "hand off" many current US responsibilities to the international community, the former official said. The president would try simultaneously to placate congressional and public opinion by indicating willingness to talk about a future troop "drawdown".

The US plan is expected to call for:

· Expanded UN involvement in overseeing Iraq's full transition to a "normal" democratic state, including an enhanced role for UN humanitarian agencies, the creation of a UN command, and possibly a Muslim-led peacekeeping force

· Increased involvement in Iraq policymaking of UN security council permanent members, Japan and EU countries - in particular, the new conservative government of French president Nicolas Sarkozy

· A bigger support role for regional countries, notably Sunni Arab Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, and international institutions such as the World Bank and IMF

· Renewed efforts to promote Iraqi government self-reliance, including attainment of national reconciliation "benchmarks"

· The accelerated removal of US troops from frontline combat duties as the handover to Iraqi security forces, backed by an increased number of US advisers, proceeds.

"The administration's plan calls for moving on several fronts," the former official said. "Firstly, there is the international plan to win political, economic and military support for the Iraqi government and state, not least by going to the UN and asking for a UN command and flag to supplant the US coalition command.

"Regionally, there is diplomacy aimed at mobilising more Arab neighbours to understand that there is no Sunni leader coming back to Baghdad and that countries like Saudi Arabia should support Maliki [Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq's Shia prime minister] before he has no choice but to fully align with Iran," the official said.

"Internally, the plan is for US forces to help isolate takfirists (fundamentalist Salafi jihadis), peel off Sunnis from the insurgency, contain hardcore elements of Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army, and halt Iranian and trans-Syrian infiltration of troops and materiel."

If all else failed, the US might seek an arrangement with Mr Sadr, if only to secure an orderly transition, the official claimed. "Cutting a deal with the Mahdi army is [vice-president] Dick Cheney's deep fallback option."

Four years after bypassing a hostile security council, the Bush administration is expected to take the Iraq question back to the UN at the annual opening of the general assembly in September.

"We foresee a very significant role for the UN and its agencies. The UN has great expertise that is badly needed in Iraq," a senior US diplomat said at the weekend. The World Bank and IMF would also be asked to do more, he said.

Washington's UN move may receive a more sympathetic hearing now that Kofi Annan, a stern critic of the Iraq invasion, has retired as secretary-general, diplomats say.

His successor, Ban Ki-moon, owes his job to US backing and may prove more accommodating. Zalmay Khalilzad, the former ambassador to Baghdad who is now Washington's envoy at the UN, is expected to play a key role.

The Bush administration is already exploring other avenues to build international support. With Tony Blair out of the picture and uncertainty surrounding Gordon Brown's intentions, Washington is said to be looking to Mr Sarkozy's new government in Paris for diplomatic and other assistance. A senior French diplomat was non-committal, saying only that it was "logical" that the US should seek French help to "rescue itself".

Responding to US difficulties in Iraq, Japan, one of Washington's most loyal allies, has been steadily raising its Middle East diplomatic profile, in part by seeking improved ties with Sunni "moderates" among the key Gulf oil suppliers.

And as if acting on cue, another US ally, President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, last week proposed the creation of a UN-flagged peacekeeping force for Iraq to be drawn from Muslim nations. The idea, floated during a summit of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, was rejected by Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari. He complained of too many foreign soldiers in his country already.

Anticipating a crescendo of domestic criticism as the deciding moment for Iraq policy draws near, US officials are playing down expectations and implying more time is needed for the surge to work.

Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador, told reporters in Baghdad recently that progress was being made towards stability and political reconciliation in Iraq. "Does that lead me to tell you that come September we're going to be able to say we've reached the sun-dappled uplands and all is well and good? I don't think so."

As part of US efforts to increase regional cooperation, Mr Crocker is to hold talks in Baghdad next week with Iranian officials. While Iranian spokesmen have been playing down the importance of the meeting in recent days, the senior US diplomat said Washington remained hopeful that Syria would play a more constructive role. "Syria needs to learn the Pakistan lesson - that the jihadis transiting into Iraq are a threat to them, too. This ought to be a win for both sides."

While it was uncertain whether the new "internationalised" approach to Iraq would get off the ground, the political stakes as the 2008 presidential and congressional elections approached could hardly be higher, the former administration official said.

"The blame game has already begun. The Democrats want to run against a 'chaos in Iraq' scenario. The Republicans will want to keep extending it [the surge] past next February. The White House may offer a schedule for a drawdown - but what does that really mean?... The only policy Republicans have is a policy of delaying the inevitable."

In a sign that personal as well as governmental damage limitation is under way, key Bush administration figures appear to be distancing themselves from current policy. National security adviser Stephen Hadley is expected to hand over many Iraq-related duties to Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, who some in Washington are already describing as a fall guy.

Similar senior-level role changes involving officials dealing with Iraq at the state department and Pentagon has fed speculation that people who helped launch Gen Petraeus's "sinking ship" are now abandoning it.

Thinktanks in Europe and the US have also recently urged "international solutions" for Iraq. "An energetic international political effort with focused mediation under the auspices of the UN is required to complement military deployments to Iraq," said Carlos Pascual, of the Brookings Institution in Washington in a recent study of US options. UN agencies should become more closely engaged, he said.

The Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG) recently proposed establishment of an "international support group" for Iraq comprising the five permanent members of the security council, Iraq's neighbours and the UN. The ICG also called for the appointment of a special UN envoy to lead a national reconciliation process.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2085981,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

d_griff
05-22-2007, 10:00 PM
We already know the UN doesnt want to help or get involved..its their fault in the first place...if they would have acted against saddam when not allowing weapons inspectors in we wouldnt be in this mess...the UN is worthless

geerair
05-22-2007, 10:41 PM
This would be another slap to the chimps mug. First dealing with a terrorist state then asking for UN help. Just more lies from the pugs.Bush is desperate to drop the fiasco he created into somebody else's lap.

He has already appointed a war czar as a possible fall-guy.


Bush's initial plan was to run out the clock on the quagmire and dump it on the next administration but now he is seeing that plan is dead in the water because of dissatisfaction in his own party which will come to head long before he finishes his term in office.

Now he wants to dump it on the U.N. hoping to salvage whatever he can of his feces covered legacy.


Too bad thousands of soldiers have died, tens of thousands have been wounded while Bush plays politics.

geerair
05-22-2007, 10:44 PM
We already know the UN doesnt want to help or get involved..its their fault in the first place...if they would have acted against saddam when not allowing weapons inspectors in we wouldnt be in this mess...the UN is worthlessThe inspectors were kicked out of Iraq by Bush.

Bush didn't like that they were reporting no WMD.

Guess what? The U.N. inspectors were right and Bush was totally wrong.




This is Bush's war, he owns it.

Tool-Slinger
05-22-2007, 11:18 PM
UN is proven about useless.
Ifiraq collapses into full civilwar, I would advocate a three nation solution. BUT, let iraqis vote for it, division would have tyo be made by a 'mediator' panel, as no-one would be happy with the end borders.

d_griff
05-23-2007, 07:42 AM
The inspectors were kicked out of Iraq by Bush.

Bush didn't like that they were reporting no WMD.
.

thats right i forget...he owns the world along with the UN weapons inspectors..
Bush is good..he got on air force one every day...flew to Iraq and told them they were not allowed to enter..
LMAO.. brainwashed a$$ raped and left dumb...you should feel used

glennac
05-23-2007, 08:12 AM
thats right i forget...he owns the world along with the UN weapons inspectors..
Bush is good..he got on air force one every day...flew to Iraq and told them they were not allowed to enter..
LMAO.. brainwashed a$$ raped and left dumb...you should feel used

I doupt that he will ask their help. Hell that would almost be like asking that old senile anti American Carter for help.

chillbilly
05-23-2007, 10:08 AM
thats right i forget...he owns the world along with the UN weapons inspectors..
Bush is good..he got on air force one every day...flew to Iraq and told them they were not allowed to enter..
LMAO.. brainwashed a$$ raped and left dumb...you should feel used

LOL

GREER AND TINKY
....................2173

geerair
05-23-2007, 06:22 PM
thats right i forget...he owns the world along with the UN weapons inspectors..
Bush is good..he got on air force one every day...flew to Iraq and told them they were not allowed to enter..Not allowed to enter? They were forced out after Bush issued an ultimatum.

Missed that bit of history did you?

No matter, Dear Leader still loves your unquestoning loyalty.





brainwashed a$$ raped and left dumb...The Bush voter's lament.

http://smilies.vidahost.com/otn/realhappy/xxrotflmao.gif

mark42202
05-23-2007, 06:34 PM
Not allowed to enter? They were forced out after Bush issued an ultimatum.

Missed that bit of history did you?


Apparently, you need a little history lesson, as well. Yes, they left after Bush's ultimatum THIS time. But what about the last time they left? Why did they leave then? What was everyone saying then? Between that time and the last time? Do you know? Probably not, so I'll post a link for you to follow.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1123

geerair
05-23-2007, 06:36 PM
Apparently, you need a little history lesson, as well. Yes, they left after Bush's ultimatum THIS time. But what about the last time they left? Why did they leave then? What was everyone saying then? Between that time and the last time? Do you know? Probably not, so I'll post a link for you to follow.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1123Your point would be?

mark42202
05-23-2007, 06:46 PM
Your point would be?

Ok, I'll go slow. You come here daily and bash Bush and every one of his decisions. You try to make little quips about loyalty to our leader, when, although you would NEVER admit it, when Saddam wasn't cooperating in 98, you were calling for his downfall just like the rest of the dems. Because Bush went in and it wasn't over just like that, you claim he's an idiot. In reality, he had the same info everyone else had (including all the dems who voted for the war/ against it/ for it again). You make stupid claims of him dropping Iraq in the next admins lap. Are you dense? This is a war. Not a sleepover. I'm sorry you don't have the mental capacity to understand the concept. Why aren't you screaming for us to get out of Korea? We've been there for over 50 years!!! This war will not only be in the next admins "lap", but in the lap of every admin for the next 20 years (if the job is done correctly, anyways). If we're going to be "liberal" and bring liberty and the opportunity for freedom to other countries, we better be ready for long, drawn out processes for EVERY one of them.

geerair
05-23-2007, 07:02 PM
Ok, I'll go slow. You come here daily and bash Bush and every one of his decisions. You try to make little quips about loyalty to our leader, when, although you would NEVER admit it, when Saddam wasn't cooperating in 98, you were calling for his downfall just like the rest of the dems. I'm a registered indepenent. Then and now.








Because Bush went in and it wasn't over just like that, you claim he's an idiot.Nope. He is an idiot because he has bungled the occupation and had no coherent plan except throw more troops and money at the problem.



In reality, he had the same info everyone else had (including all the dems who voted for the war/ against it/ for it again).Oh dear, this old wives tale again. Google The Office of special Plans, Ahmed Chalabi, Curveball, the Iraqi defectors. All of these were used to justify the invasion and were intelligence Bush owned and used in making his case.




You make stupid claims of him dropping Iraq in the next admins lap.
This is a war. Not a sleepover. I'm sorry you don't have the mental capacity to understand the concept. No, it is an optional excursion.



Why aren't you screaming for us to get out of Korea? We've been there for over 50 years!!! 3,341 and counting reasons.


This war will not only be in the next admins "lap", but in the lap of every admin for the next 20 years (if the job is done correctly, anyways).Unfortunately, you may be right. It is such a quagmire that it may take twenty years to straighten out the mess Bush has made.



If we're going to be "liberal" and bring liberty and the opportunity for freedom to other countries, we better be ready for long, drawn out processes for EVERY one of them.That is not liberal, that is empire building. Something Bush promised he would never do.

I expect you are a firm believer in the "White Man's Burden" philosophy.

mark42202
05-23-2007, 07:24 PM
3,341 and counting reasons.

36,516 in Korea, and that war still isn't over, either.



That is not liberal, that is empire building. Something Bush promised he would never do.

Promoting freedom and democracy is not empire building. Toppling tyranny isn't empire building. Tell me, what's the difference between Milosevic slaughtering his people and Saddam slaughtering his? Was Clinton empire building?


I expect you are a firm believer in the "White Man's Burden" philosophy.

Nope. I am a firm believer in the millions of Iraqis who have a chance to live free, which they didn't have before. I'm a firm believer that while I agree that our military should take a lesser role in favor of an advisory role, our presence will be needed in Iraq for years to help establish a stable democracy (not because it's a quagmire). I'm a firm believer that every country on the planet should be free of tyranny and mindless slaughter by their leaders. I'm a firm believer in giving my life so that someone else may have a better one, no matter what color their skin is or their religious beliefs are.

chillbilly
05-23-2007, 07:37 PM
Ok, I'll go slow. You come here daily and bash Bush and every one of his decisions. You try to make little quips about loyalty to our leader, when, although you would NEVER admit it, when Saddam wasn't cooperating in 98, you were calling for his downfall just like the rest of the dems. Because Bush went in and it wasn't over just like that, you claim he's an idiot. In reality, he had the same info everyone else had (including all the dems who voted for the war/ against it/ for it again). You make stupid claims of him dropping Iraq in the next admins lap. Are you dense? This is a war. Not a sleepover. I'm sorry you don't have the mental capacity to understand the concept. Why aren't you screaming for us to get out of Korea? We've been there for over 50 years!!! This war will not only be in the next admins "lap", but in the lap of every admin for the next 20 years (if the job is done correctly, anyways). If we're going to be "liberal" and bring liberty and the opportunity for freedom to other countries, we better be ready for long, drawn out processes for EVERY one of them.

Excellent stuff Mark. And funny as hell with the sleepover analogy.
I laughed my ass off on that one!

Notice the response of selected snippets and the soundbite type responses?
No way is greer repeating your comparison of war and a sleepover, because it's very embarassing for him when someone has to explain these dynamics to him.
This goofball is a walking serial typist.
If he had to act on anything, he'd find a way to talk at it.

Anywho, Thanks for the humor and the sensible comparisons.

geerair
05-23-2007, 08:03 PM
36,516 in Korea, and that war still isn't over, either.Nobody is setting off IED's, strapping on explosives or shooting at our soldiers either.





Promoting freedom and democracy is not empire building. Toppling tyranny isn't empire building. Tell me, what's the difference between Milosevic slaughtering his people and Saddam slaughtering his? Was Clinton empire building?Except that promoting freedom was not the prime reason for the invasion Iraq as stated by Bush. At best it was a lagging third after the second and first excuses failed.

Clinton empire building? What would be the benefit to the U.S. and Clinton specifically that would motivate empire building?




Nope. I am a firm believer in the millions of Iraqis who have a chance to live free, which they didn't have before. That is admirable but Destroy the Village to Save the Village hasn't worked in the past and is not working now.




I'm a firm believer that while I agree that our military should take a lesser role in favor of an advisory role, our presence will be needed in Iraq for years to help establish a stable democracy (not because it's a quagmire).I agree with the first part of that statement but because of previous actions and decisions and the nature of the sectarian violence, an advisory role will remain in the background necessitated by the urgency to provide security not only for the people but in order to give the government a chance at becoming a credible agency of security and governance.

Iraq has shown to be a ever escalating loop of violence that our presence has if anything inflamed.

There is no particular credible plan to break this loop and even Republicans are beginning to see this.

We don't seem to be a part of the solution and the best solution for all is too pull back and let the Iraqi's decide which way they prefer.








I'm a firm believer that every country on the planet should be free of tyranny and mindless slaughter by their leaders. I'm a firm believer in giving my life so that someone else may have a better one, no matter what color their skin is or their religious beliefs are.Again, very admirable but should we wreck ourselves in order to force our views, way of life and form of government on others?