The UN, US and Iraq IV

US woos Europe as costs force Iraq U-turn
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
08 September 2003


President George Bush was last night explaining America's climbdown over Iraq, offering an olive branch to sceptical European leaders in a U-turn that has already seen him approach the UN for help in the reconstruction effort.

In a 15-minute television address to the American people, Mr Bush had the task of explaining how he intended to share the administration's financial and military burden in Iraq. He also needed to clarify why he was now wooing the very European allies he snubbed just a few months ago.

With his approval rating at its lowest since he took office in January 2001, Mr Bush was expected to plead for patience, more time and - most delicately - a lot more money. He made his address early today, British time, from the White House - his first such speech since the war began in March.

As senior members of his administration flagged his remarks in a carefully orchestrated media blitz over the weekend, it became clear that US requests for military contributions from important United Nations members were relatively modest. According to Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, no more than 15,000 troops were needed to complement the 150,000 US soldiers already on the ground alongside 10,500 British troops. Yesterday, about 120 British soldiers left their base in Cyprus for Iraq in the first of what was expected to be a series of new deployments.

General Powell, who consistently argued for a multilateral approach in Iraq, indicated in a television interview that troop numbers were less important than bringing the UN on board and broadening the scope of what until now has been seen as a US-led military occupation. "What we're really interested in ... is to get the international community to come together and participate in the political reconstruction of Iraq," he said.

While negotiations continue on formulating a new UN Security Council resolution that will satisfy aggrieved allies such as France and Germany, Mr Bush was expected to argue for more, not less, US commitment. His administration has recently characterised Iraq as the central battleground in the war on terrorism, while glossing over the fact that if this is the case, the US invasion itself has been largely responsible for making it so.

Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser, said on CNN: "The key here is we must remain resolute. The cost of freedom and the cost of peace cannot be measured ... It is important that we put adequate resources to this task."

Mr Bush was expected to specify in his address how much money he would seek from Congress for the year beginning 1 October. Reports suggested the figure could be anywhere from $60bn (£40bn) to $80bn - enough to extend an occupation already costing about $1bn a week, and provide further funds for reconstruction.

Mr Bush's speech will serve as a direct rebuttal to his critics - including many of the competitors for next year's Democratic presidential nomination - who have called for US troops to be brought home.

But making the case will be complicated by growing dismay over the casualty rate in Iraq and fears that the Middle East could turn into another Vietnam. The number of US soldiers killed since the President declared an end to formal combat operations on 1 May has already exceeded the number who died during the war.

Two missiles were fired at a US transport plane taking off from Baghdad's airport yesterday, at the time that Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence was leaving Iraq. The missiles missed their target.

The huge cost of maintaining the Iraq operation is a liability for the United States, which is running a record budget deficit. And the economic recovery, which the administration insists is taking place, is failing to stem the tide of mounting unemployment. Polls show that the economy is potentially a huge weakness for Mr Bush, just as it was for his father after the Gulf War 12 years ago.

Bush warns of challenges ahead over Iraq
By Toby Harnden in Washington
(Filed: 08/09/2003)


President George W Bush vowed to continue his fight against global terrorism in an address to the American people early this morning but acknowledged that there were challenges ahead and that more US money would be needed to finish the job in Iraq.

"We will do whatever is necessary, we will spend what is necessary, to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror, to promote freedom, and to make our nation more secure," Mr Bush said.

"Our strategy in Iraq has three objectives - destroying the terrorists . . . enlisting the support of other nations for a free Iraq . . . and helping Iraqis assume responsibility for their own defence and their own future."

Mr Bush repeated his policy change on Iraq, saying: "Members of the United Nations now have an opportunity, and the responsibility, to assume a broader role in assuring that Iraq becomes a free and democratic nation."

He also urged the Iraqi people to step up to the task of governing themselves. "They must rise to the responsibilities of a free people, and secure the blessings of their own liberty," he said.

He urged Americans to be patient during the coming months. "Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror would be a lengthy war, a different kind of war, fought on many fronts in many places," he said.

"Iraq is now the central front. Enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there - and there they must be defeated. This will take time, and require sacrifice."

Mr Bush recognised that the stakes were high; that the Middle East "will either become a place of progress and peace, or it will be an exporter of violence and terror that takes more lives in America and in other free nations".

He added: "The triumph of democracy and tolerance in Iraq, in Afghanistan and beyond, would be a grave setback for international terrorism."

In an about-turn in policy last week, Mr Bush abandoned his long-standing opposition to a United Nations force and asked Mr Powell to negotiate a new UN resolution aimed at bringing in fresh troops.

The White House hopes that countries such as India, Pakistan and Turkey will contribute forces for the occupation. There are currently about 21,000 non-American troops in Iraq.

American officials said Mr Bush would ask Congress for $65-80 billion (£40-50 billion) to be spent on the Iraqi occupation. Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, said it was anticipated that up to 15,000 non-American troops would be added to the 140,000-strong force.

"We are not expecting this new resolution to cause a large number of additional troops to be added from the international community," he told NBC television. "I would guess that perhaps there are 10,000 to 15,000 more who might be made available."

The last time Mr Bush spoke to his country was on May 1 when he was standing on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln under a banner that read: "Mission Accomplished".

That appearance is currently viewed within the White House as a political albatross. It has provided much fodder for the nine Democratic presidential candidate as US casualties are sustained almost daily and disorder continues.

The decision to address the nation was taken before it became clear that Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian premier, was about to resign. That decision, and the Israeli attempt to kill Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the Hamas leader, made Mr Bush's task this morning much harder.

One of the primary Bush administration arguments for the Iraq war was that it would open up new possibilities for peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Democrats, who just months ago had intended to focus on the economy during their primary campaigns, have instead begun to hammer relentlessly at Mr Bush's Iraq policy.

In private, White House aides say they desperately need the scalp of Saddam Hussein or, better still, Osama bin Laden, to turn the tide of public opinion back towards Mr Bush.

A poll released yesterday indicated for the first time since the September 11 attacks that a majority of Americans had an unfavourable opinion of Mr Bush.

The Zogby International poll found that 45 per cent of respondents rated Mr Bush's job performance as good or excellent, while 54 per cent said it was fair or poor. In a similar poll in August, Mr Bush's favourability rating was 52 per cent.

I'm still wondering what cockeyed politician came up with "asymmetrical war." Oh, excuse me, "asymmetrical politician." Ah well, both could be oblique oxymorons.

The war in Afghanistan may be on the media's back burner, but it hasn't gone away. It has intensified. See, there are these people who want you and I to die.