The UN, US and Iraq IV

US open to leadership role for UN in Iraq

By Guy Dinmore in Washington and Gareth Smyth in Baghdad Published: August 28 2003 0:46 | Last Updated: August 28 2003

US and allied forces in Iraq could be placed under United Nations leadership but commanded by an American, according to a senior US official describing the search for a new and more internationally acceptable Security Council resolution defining the role of the occupying powers.
Richard Armitage, the deputy secretary of state, said the formula was one of several ideas being "explored" at the UN.
While a State Department spokesman clarified that this was "not an idea that we are necessarily putting", the proposal is likely to fuel a debate within the Bush administration on the degree of dominance the US wants to maintain in Iraq as its casualties and costs mount.
According to a transcript of an interview released by the State Department on Wednesday, Mr Armitage, who has clashed before with hawks in the Bush administration, said one proposal was "a multinational force under UN leadership, but the American would be the UN commander".
He declined to give details but said "widening decision-making" was also under discussion. In reply to another question, he said "one of the interesting ideas" was for the US to maintain control of the military while the UN took over civil affairs.
Colin Powell, secretary of state, broke off his holiday last week to go to the UN to ask the international community to take on a greater role in Iraq. Countries such as India, Pakistan and France have said they would consider contributing troops only if there were a clear UN mandate. France, which opposed the war, is insisting on a greater devolution of powers by the US.
Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, said on Monday he could not envisage US troops fighting under UN command. The Bush administration is under pressure from Congress and the public to share the military burden in Iraq. But US commanders have recently suggested that an influx of foreign troops would allow US forces to redeploy to fight the guerrilla war rather than return home.
Standing near the wreckage of the UN headquarters in Baghdad, Romiro Lopes da Silva, the temporary UN co-ordinator, said the UN remained crucial to the reconstruction effort. "The instrument of the engagement of the international community is the UN. Tuesday does not change this," he said of the bombing last week that killed more than 20, including Sergio Vieira de Mello, the head of mission. "We always said the UN needed a very clear mandate defining exactly our terms of engagement," he said, criticising resolution 1483 as the "very ambiguous" result of a compromise.
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1059479372068
[]

Its amazing how running into difficulty has made the administration willing to play by the rules.

remains to be seen, i have close to zero confidence in the Bush accepting the humilation of a UN that includes France and Germany..

During the high middle ages, a defeated and humiliated ruler was required to parade around the city walls with his retainers in sackcloth and ashes. I would LOVE to see Georgie Poo II take that walk of shame.

That's Edgar Allan in your avatar, isn't it, Robert?

Feeling homesick for Bawl'e'mer. JUst re-read "The Hearse you Rode In On,"

Must be Geli, 'cause jam don't shake like that...

I gotta start wearing my robe

Where's all them coalition forces? Seems only Americans are getting killed. c.i.

There are about a dozen killed British and even a Danish soldier (out of the about 300 there) has been killed.

Do you think this is a becasue of the laregr number of Americans, or becasue the Europeans are not as disliked as we are?

You don't suppose 'bring em on' has anything to do with it?

One reason certainly is that the UK troops are (actually: have been) in a "safer" region.
Mainly it certainly is, because of their lower number.

Other nations don't have combat troops there, which is the third reason.

I'm not sure about 'dislike/like'.

There is another hard to ignore statistic.

Gels, Point will taken, but most of us against this war could see the crime in attacking a country without the justification to call it a defensive action. That this administration would use the words "for the Iraqi People" has absolutely no truth in it. c.i.

The story about a possible deal with the UN was on the front page of the NYTimes, too, Tartarin. Was your piece from the FT?

I could not be more delighted with this turn of events and will get down on my knees to the Sun God and beg that she will make this happen, in spite of its unlikelihood in face of our pig-headed arrogance.

Ge, I have always wondered why they refuse to do body counts, civilian and otherwise, in Iraq. They must be afraid that we would be unable to stomach what "we" were doing to the country.

I was impressed by the straight-forward attitude and humility of the head of NASA. He did only a bit of backing and filling, which is allowed and maybe was a correct assessment of the situation. What if GWB came forward and admitted that he had been wrong but was determined to get it right now. I know, that's La-La-Land.

c.i., I neglected to thank you for that piece you patched in on Iraq III about how the marines were treated when they came on board the airliner. It was an appropriate response. I would have cheered, too, but I know what I would have done if Bush and Rumsfeld had been the ones that the plane was held up for.

How about a law in which a president may not go to war unless he first gets approval from Congress for a certain estimated number of military and civilian deaths? Should the military and civilian death counts (taken together) exceed that number, he, his Secretaries of Defense and State, National Security advisor, and Congressional leadership must don uniforms and act as corpsmen on site until the US withdraws...

Poll: Yes___ No___

Tartar, You dreamer, you!