Iraq , between a rock and a hard place.

Tallying the Dead in Iraq
he American intervention in Iraq has reached a disheartening milestone. With the death of an American soldier yesterday in an ambush outside Baghdad, more American military men and women have now died in the postwar period than perished during the war itself. That grim statistic mocks President Bush's triumphant appearance aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln on May 1, when he declared an end to major combat operations. More important, it makes clear that the United States will pay a high price in blood and treasure if the Bush administration persists in its misguided effort to pacify and rebuild Iraq without extensive international support.

Giving a greater role to the United Nations and recruiting thousands of foreign soldiers to help patrol Iraq would not relieve the United States of its obligations or extinguish the dangers that American forces face. But these steps would make the postwar occupation more manageable and give the Iraqi people a sense that their country is not turning into an American outpost in the Arab world. It might also make Americans more willing to support the long-term commitment that will be needed to transform Iraq into a modern, democratic and prosperous state.

By invading Iraq without a clear-cut mandate from the United Nations Security Council, Washington all but guaranteed that an American military victory would be followed by a predominantly American occupation, with all the disadvantages that entails. The White House compounded the problem by leaving postwar planning and administration largely in the hands of the Defense Department, elbowing aside the State Department, the U.N. and private relief organizations. The Pentagon was woefully unprepared for the collapse of law and order, the breakdown of basic services and the difficulties of moving a society from tyranny to democracy.

To turn things around, Mr. Bush needs to enlist help from more experienced officials in Washington and at the U.N. That will not be easy for an administration that openly advertises its contempt for the U.N. The White House should accept a new Security Council resolution broadening U.N. political and economic authority, enabling other countries to make substantial contributions to an international peacekeeping force. The administration should also be honest about the investment — American and international — required to rebuild Iraq.

A stable peace in Iraq cannot be won on the cheap or absent foreign partners. With the death count mounting daily, it is time for Mr. Bush to stop pretending otherwise.

From N.Y. Times opinion.

The Jihad All-Stars
By MAUREEN DOWD


WASHINGTON — Yep, we've got 'em right where we want 'em.

We've brought the fight to their turf, they're swarming into Iraq and blowing up our troops and other Westerners every day, and that's just where we want to be.

Our exhausted and frustrated soldiers are in a hideously difficult environment they're not familiar with, dealing with a culture America only dimly understands, where our desperation for any intelligence has reduced us to recruiting Saddam's old spies, whom we didn't trust in the first place, and where we're so strapped that soldiers may have to face back-to-back yearlong overseas tours.

We don't know exactly which of our ghostly Arab enemies are which, how many there are, who's plotting with whom, what weapons they have, how they're getting into Iraq, where they're hiding, or who's financing and organizing them.

And we certainly don't understand the violent internecine religious battles we've set in motion. At first the Shiites were with us, and the Sunnis were giving us all the trouble. Now a new generation of radical Shiites is rising up and assassinating other Shiites aligned with us; they view us as the enemy and our quest as a chance to establish an Islamist state, which Rummy says won't be tolerated.

In yesterday's milestones, the number of U.S. soldiers who have died since the war now exceeds the number who died during the war, and next year's deficit was estimated at a whopping $480 billion, even without all the sky-high costs of Iraq.

But Republicans suggest that Iraq's turning into a terrorist magnet could be convenient — one-stop shopping against terrorism. As Rush Limbaugh observed: "We don't have to go anywhere to find them! They've fielded a Jihad All-Star Team."

The strutting, omniscient Bush administration would never address the possibility that our seizure of Iraq has left us more vulnerable to terrorists. So it is doing what it did during the war, when Centcom briefings routinely began with the iteration: "Coalition forces are on plan," "We remain on plan," "Our plan is working."

Even though the Middle East has become a phantasmagoria of evil spirits, and even though some Bush officials must be muttering to themselves that they should have listened to the weenies at State and nags at the C.I.A., Team Bush is sticking to its mantra that everything is going according to plan.

As Condoleezza Rice put it on Monday, the war to defend the homeland "must be fought on the offense."

Taking a breather from fund-raisers yesterday, Mr. Bush discreetly ignored his administration's chaotic occupation plan and declaimed, "No nation can be neutral in the struggle between civilization and chaos."

Echoing remarks by other officials implying that it's better to have one big moment of truth and fight our enemies on their turf rather than ours, Mr. Bush said, "Our military is confronting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and in other places so our people will not have to confront terrorist violence in New York or St. Louis or Los Angeles."

So that's the latest rationale for going into Iraq? We wanted an Armageddon with our enemies, so we decided to conquer an Arab country and drive the Muslim fanatics so crazy with their jihad mentality that they'd flip out and storm in, and then we'd kill them all?

Terrorism is not, as the president seems to suggest, a finite thing.

Asked at a recent Pentagon town hall meeting how he envisioned the end state for the war on terror, Donald Rumsfeld replied, "I guess the end state in the shortest response would be to not be terrorized."

By doing their high-risk, audacious sociological and political makeover in Iraq, Bush officials and neocons hoped to drain the terrorist swamp in the long run. But in the short run, they have created new terrorist-breeding swamps full of angry young Arabs who see America the same way Muslims saw Westerners in the Crusades: as Christian expansionist imperialists motivated by piety and greed.

Just because the unholy alliance of Saddam loyalists, foreign fighters and Islamic terrorists has turned Iraq into a scary shooting gallery for our troops doesn't mean Americans at home are any safer. Since when did terrorists see terror as an either-or proposition?

"Bring 'em on" sounded like a tinny, reckless boast the first time the president said it. It doesn't sound any better when Mr. Bush says it louder with a chorus.

au, I didn't read all your posts, simply because they are too long, but I get the jest of your question. Here's my .02c worth: Yes, get the UN involvement with equal say in what should be done in Iraq in relation to their contributions in providing military and reconstruction money. The "appearance" that the US does not want to relinquish their total control is the worst scenario one can imagine for the Iraqis and the world. Secondly, the US must not dictate how the Iraqi people will establish their own government. Trying to force a "democracy" is the wrong tactic; it must come naturally from the freedoms that the people themselvees feel and experiece. They must "want" democracy; not shoved down their throats. Finally, let the Iraqi people police their own country. Tell them it's their responsibility and the world's expectation. Assist them in achieving that goal, but let them lead the strategy on how to accomplish that goal. They don't need a baby-sitter. NOTE: This administration never understood the Iraqi culture, and why it would have been impossible to force any political system on them. They still haven't learned that lesson. c.i.

while the Bush deficit spending skyrockets:
Washington -- Iraq will need "several tens of billions" of dollars from abroad during the next year to rebuild its rickety infrastructure and revive its moribund economy, and American taxpayers and foreign governments will be asked to contribute substantial sums, U.S. occupation coordinator L. Paul Bremer said Tuesday.

Bremer said Iraqi revenues would not nearly cover the bill for economic needs "almost impossible to exaggerate." Just to meet current electrical demand will cost $2 billion, Bremer said, while a national system to deliver clean water would cost an estimated $16 billion over four years.

The figures, which must be added to the $4 billion the Pentagon spends each month on military operations in Iraq, offer the latest evidence that the price of the Iraqi occupation is growing substantially.

A State Department official said the Bush administration was preparing to seek a "huge" supplemental spending bill from Congress. Administration sources also said the U.S.-controlled Coalition Provisional Authority was running so low on funds that the White House was considering requesting an emergency infusion next month to cover the organization's bills.

Bremer's comments, in an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors, came on a day when the Congressional Budget Office said the federal government would post a record deficit next year of $480 billion. Wary of revealing specifics, neither Bremer nor President Bush -- who referred to "substantial" new costs in a St. Louis speech -- would give details.

To tap one source of cash, a "very intense dialogue" is under way with Iraq's 25-member governing council about the need to open the country to foreign investment, Bremer said. That includes deciding the fate of 192 state- owned enterprises -- most significantly the oil industry, which Bremer believes should remain in Iraqi hands.

The administration is also eager to draw money and manpower from foreign governments. But a number of countries have said they are reluctant unless the United Nations is given greater authority in managing postwar Iraq. Bremer, citing progress in the U.S.-led reconstruction effort, strongly questioned the wisdom of shifting significant responsibility to the United Nations.

"What exactly is it that happens on the ground that makes things better if the U.N. is in charge of reconstruction?" Bremer said. "How does the situation on the ground get better?"

Bremer said it would take until next summer for the Coalition Provisional Authority to meet Iraq's daily 6,000-megawatt electricity demand -- longer, if sabotage continues on the country's nearly 12,000 miles of power lines. The country is producing about 3,300 megawatts, less than the 4,000 megawatt prewar average, he said.

Calling power "in many ways the key to reconstruction," he said authorities had ordered a 400-megawatt generator for Baghdad, plus 1.5-megawatt emergency generators for 36 water-pumping stations. Engineers have told him Iraq should spend $13 billion during the next five years to put the aged system in good order.

Oil revenues are lower than U.S. planners had hoped, afflicted by antiquated facilities, power shortages and severe looting. Iraq produced 1.7 million barrels Monday, down from a prewar range of 2.5 million to 3 million barrels a day, Bremer said. His goal is to return production to prewar levels by October 2004.

Even when Iraqi deliveries return to 2002 levels, the industry will not produce enough revenue to rebuild the country, Bremer said. The Bush administration is preparing for a donors conference in Madrid in October, where it hopes to raise significant sums from around the world.

dys, There's a misconnect between what this administration is willing to spend in dollars and US military lives in Iraq vs what is desperately needed in our own country. Our countries infrastructure is breaking down as was proven recently by the east coast blackouts. Our roads and railroads are in desperate need of repair and upgrades. Our schools are being neglected - not only school buildings, but the shortage of teachers. Jobs are being exported to other countries by the thousands every month. The tax base is being depleted. The economy is in a shambles, and four million have lost their jobs since GWBush took over the WH. Health care costs are skyrocketing, and more people are without health insurance. How can our country afford to spend these billions in Iraq while our country continues to lay off workers? How does GWBush continue to enjoy a high job rating? Terrorism has hit home, but nobody seems to notice. c.i.

Based upon the opinion of most nations regarding the US action in Iraq. I wonder without concessions by the US if a conference will bear fruit. IMO it's stew in your own juice. Most people and nations enjoy watching the big guy knocked down a few pegs.
And considering the ill will our president has been able to garner during this term of office I would expect I will give even greater pleasure.

Gordon Adams, an economist at George Washington University:
"The consequences of not going for that [UN role] is that we pay the bill. The Bush administration is bound and determined to shoot itself in the foot at the cost of American taxpayers."

When Robert Cecil, Lord Salisbury, was Foreign Secretary in the 1880's, he articulated a statement of English policy as "splendid Isolation." Later, when Joe Chamberlain was the Colonial Secretary, he privately told Salisbury that England could not go it alone, and he attempted an alliance with Imperial Germany. That effort failed, and there was much political turmoil around Chamberlain, but that is not the point here. When Salisbury, who was serving as Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, was forced by health to give up the Foreign portfolio, he was replaced by Lord Landsdowne. Landsdowne had the same idea as Chamberlain, and he sought and obtained an alliance with Japan. The French Foreign Minister from 1898 to 1905, Delcassé, swam against the tide of French public opinion, and sought an alliance with England, because of the threat of Germany, now a member of the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria and Italy. Eventually, an Entente Cordiale was established between England and France, and finally, England joined the Triple Alliance with France and Russia.

"Ancient history," I know--but my point is that at the height of her imperial power, England found she could not go it alone. The United States is no different in the respect that, just as the Royal Navy could not assure the supremecy of the English, our Navy, Army and Air Force cannot assure our supremecy in this world. Even less so in the face of a "war on terrorism." We cannot bomb terrorism out of existence, and we cannot hunt it on the seas or from the air. We can certainly use our many military assets effectively, and we have not been doing so in either Afghanistan or Iraq. If we must go "hat in hand" to the United Nations, then by all means, let us do so. It is now claimed that the murderous incidents of which we read each day are the product of the activities of foreigners who enter Iraq with the express purpose of attacking Americans. If that is the case, then we need as much support as we can get to fight these terrorists, and the U.N. is the place to start. Our idiot-child President told them to "bring it on," and "they" have brung it on with a vengeance. With solid international support, we can rebuild Iraq, and give the Iraqis a stake in the future which would make them willing partners in a fight against those who attempt to destabilize that nation for their own parochial interests. As it stands right now, we are not strong enough on the ground to fight these threats effectively, and we are not providing the Iraqis the services and infrastructure to which they are entitled. Ideologies and rhetoric be damned, i care not for the "moral" rights or wrongs of the situation, the pragmatic view is all that matters. With international support, we can clean up the mess that the loose cannon in the White House has created.

I think part of the problem lies in the isolation from world events that many Americans live in. By the time the majority of teh nation learns something is amiss, it is too late. We who choose to post here are an anomaly (pat, pat, pat) in that we make the effort to stay informed of events elswhere in the world. Joe average working in the Smith Tower in Seattle, or the Bank One building in Denver is often more interested in his favourite sports team or the new car he wants to buy than in famine in central Africa, or torture of prisoners in Chechnya. The news media is no help, since Brittsy, and Leonardo, and Ben make headlines more often than international affairs. We must make the conscious decision to throw away the blinders, but we can't force others to do so. They must come to an interest on their own.

hobit, I'm afraid you are too kind to the American people. They are not only isolated from world events, but also domestic ones. Bet most Americans can't name most people in GWBush's administration. c.i.

That is true of almost any country CI.

Hobitbob
Is that exclusive to Americans or is it a common failing of people around the globe.

It does seem to be universal, as Craven pointed out. But many people in other parts of the world are better informed of foreign affairs.

U.S. Now Signals It Might Consider U.N. Force in Iraq
By DOUGLAS JEHL


ASHINGTON, Aug. 27 — The Bush administration has signaled for the first time that it may be willing to allow a multinational force in Iraq to operate under the sponsorship of the United Nations as long as it is commanded by an American.

The idea was described by Richard L. Armitage, the deputy secretary of state, as just "one idea being explored" in discussions at the United Nations. It was first hinted at publicly last week by Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary general.
Mr. Armitage's remarks, made on Tuesday to regional reporters and released by the State Department today, represent a potential shift in course for the administration, which has until now insisted that all military, economic and political matters in Iraq remain under total American control. Allowing the United Nations a leadership role would be intended to win the support of the Security Council for a new mandate authorizing the American-led occupation of the country.


Comes the awakening!

I think that there is a constant strain in the view of well-educated and well-informed Americans in describing the people of other nations--that strain is that they are better-informed, better-education, more sophisticated, etc. I would say this derives from a dynamic which is often ignored. Until recently in our history, but since the end of the Second World War, working class Americans were sufficiently well paid to travel extensively. Europeans and others were exposed to those Americans who don't necessarily have the best educations, and do not necessarily keep themselves well-informed about other people and nations. However, we tend to meet in our country those Europeans and others who are more affluent, and better-educated. I think this applies to the Japanese, as well. For much of their history since 1950, factory workers and others who usually don't have university educations have had the means to travel extensively--hence the stereotype of the gawking, shutter-bug Japanese tourists being herded around in tour groups.

I know that when we compare the test results of American children in secondary schools, this is done from the general school population, and includes all but the most disabled. But in Europe, it is often the case that only the best students are tested, and often, a child is diverted into a "vocational" education path before reaching the secondary education level. The result seems to suggest that our students don't do as well, but the compared groups are not equivalent.

I would venture to say that we look at our general population, and despair of their ignorance, but that we look at the brightest and best of other nations, and despair further because of a false sense of their sophistication.

Set, As an individual with extensive travel experience around the world, I disagaree with your thesis. I think many things play into our perceptions of other's sophistication in world politics. The dynamics that play into how we perceive others generally results from what we see and read in the media, and not from first hand knowledge. c.i.

Well, i just spent about thirty minutes giving a detailed response to you, c.i., and this dog and pony show suddenly, for no reason, took me the the health forum, and lost the post.

I try to give you the short answer. You're not the only one who has travelled extensively. Americans are often, i would say usually, judged by the experience other populations have of our tourists, whereas our population refers to the media, as you have suggested. Our nation is physically large, and the parochial interests of Americans refer to a much greater population and land area than the parochial interests of an Italian. The political vagaries which occur in France are usually not likely to have any significant influence on the lives of the majority of Americans. Political decisions taken here, and whom the populace elects, can have a profound effect on the French.

I'll stick with my thesis that those who consider Americans naive in comparison to other populations are themselves naive. They are comparing the median of the American society to the "brightest and best" of other societies, and i think it represents an unrecognized attitude of inferiority to the "old world." I don't hold with that, i've read too much history to believe that there has been any more sophistication in European or Asian affairs than here, any less corruption, venality and stupidity, nor any higher expression of culture throughout entire nations.

I want my dollar back!