|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 10/18/04 - 15:23 Post subject: our way or the highway
Report: Bush Blocked Plan for Muslim Iraq Force (By Irwin Arieff)
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States rejected a Saudi plan for an all-Muslim force to protect U.N. election staff in Iraq because the force would not have been under U.S. command, New York daily Newsday reported Monday. Saudi Arabia announced it hoped to organize such a force last July during a visit by Secretary of State Colin Powell but several Muslim countries, including Indonesia, Egypt and Pakistan also were cool to the idea because they would serve under U.S. command, and because of the increasing violence in Iraq. The United Nations also was uncertain whether it wanted its staff protected by a force of all one religious group rather than its usual multilateral approach, U.N. sources said.
But Newsday said Crown Prince Abdullah personally lobbied President Bush to agree to deploy a unit of several hundred troops from Muslim nations to help prepare for January elections. Washington, the newspaper said, turned down the proposal because the troops would have been under U.N. control under the Saudi plan rather than the U.S. commanders who lead the multinational force now intended to ensure security in Iraq. "The question of control "was a serious issue for the commanders of the multinational force," Newsday quoted an unnamed White House spokesman as saying.
A senior U.S. administration official in Washington blamed the Iraqi government for the plan's failure, saying it did not want troops from neighboring countries deployed inside Iraq. In addition, the plan contained no real commitment by other Arab nations to contribute troops to the force, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
But Iraqi officials said they had already worked out a deal with the Saudis ruling out the involvement of any Iraqi neighbor, Newsday said. "This was a missed opportunity for the United States to have other nations share the burden in Iraq," Newsday quoted one unnamed Saudi official as saying.
The Saudi crown prince discussed the plan with the U.S. president by telephone on July 28, the newspaper said. In Riyadh, a Saudi government official said he was unaware the plan had been blocked. His government's role had been confined to making the proposal in July, the official said. "We're just putting it on the table. We put the plan out and it's for the parties to go ahead or not," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The world body is under heavy pressure from the United States, Iraq and other countries to send senior staff into Iraq quickly to help conduct the elections, due by Jan. 30. Both the Bush administration and Iraq's current leaders believe that sticking to the timetable for the first democratic elections in decades is crucial to quelling an insurgency that has killed thousands since last year's U.S.-led invasion. But because of the precarious security situation, U.N. help is hampered by a ceiling of 35 imposed on all international staff in Iraq, including political and humanitarian workers.
Annan pulled all international staff out of Iraq last year after two bomb attacks on U.N. headquarters in Baghdad. The first, in August 2003, killed 22 people and injured 150.
|
|
|
GaRebelRunner
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 1097
Location: Tucker, GA
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/15/06 - 08:12 Post subject:
I wouldn't expect anything else from the Bush administration. I no longer have a clue as to what his agenda is. If you notice Cheney and Rumsfeld who were the architects of the Iraq invasion no longer say anything and leave Bush to his own devices. History will judge Bush as one of the most ineffective and harmful Presidents to ever hold the office. But Cheney and Rumsfeld will skip the majority of the criticism except on the back pages of obscure article, documentaries and history books. They are making sure their names are not so connected with Bush's actions despite the fact they are primarily responsible for this fine mess they have us in.
Bush wants to circumvent the Geneva Convention rules when applying them to enemy combattants, but doesn't see the consequences of his same principles being applied to any captured U.S. soldiers.
As a nation we are going to pay for the arrogance of this administration. Just a matter of time. And then we'll be wondering why.
|
|
|
andydp
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 8122
Location: Upstate NY near Albany
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/15/06 - 10:16 Post subject:
I'll say this again: The lack of planning for OIF as opposed to Desert Storm was vivdly apparent to me. During Desert Storm (DS) I was working at the NYS Nathinal Guard HQ. The place was a beehive of activity for months. Support units being mobilized (Engineer, MP, Transportation) and thousands of Soldiers being used to support our efforts.
During OIF there was none of that sense of urgency. In support ofg my observation, a recent book has come out saying Rumsfeld did not want any planning done for post occupation. i.e. MP use, civil infrastructure etc etc.
Rumsfeld wanted to lighten up the Military to be highly flexible and mobile in light of "new" adversaries we might face. That thought seemed to permeate to the support and nation building that is required after an occupation. (Not needed). The administration is in denial that they screwed up the first few days and we are paying the price.
|
