THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Why does it seem such a stretch to believe that there are peoples on this earth that would rather follow a man that, to them, represents the crucible of their faith ...

Just besause we freed them of a monster does not mean they should follow our desires and give up their own.

In answer to Scrat: paraphrasing .... those that cast the vote are powerless .... those that count the vote are the power.

I'm not sure Iraq is immune from "history repeats itself."

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy...But before we get deeper embroiled into this ... quagmire, I think that an assessment has to be made of the ... policy so far. [The President] has never explained to the American people why he was involving the U.S. military in a ... war in a sovereign nation, other than to say it is for humanitarian reasons, a new military/foreign policy precedent."

With every week of insurgency in a war zone with no front, these companies are becoming more deeply enmeshed in combat, in some cases all but obliterating distinctions between professional troops and private commandos. Company executives see a clear boundary between their defensive roles as protectors and the offensive operations of the military. But more and more, they give the appearance of private, for-profit militias -- by several estimates, a force of roughly 20,000 on top of an American military presence of 130,000...

The price of this partnership is soaring. By some recent government estimates, security costs could claim up to 25 percent of the $18 billion budgeted for reconstruction, a huge and mostly unanticipated expense that could delay or force the cancellation of billions of dollars worth of projects to rebuild schools, water treatment plants, electric lines and oil refineries...

The authority initially estimated that security costs would eat up about 10 percent of the $18 billion in reconstruction money approved by Congress, said Capt. Bruce A. Cole of the Navy, a spokesman for the authority's program management office.

But after months of sabotage and insurgency, some officials now say a much higher percentage will go to security companies that unblushingly charge $500 to $1,500 a day for their most skilled operators...

But some military leaders are openly grumbling that the lure of $500 to $1,500 a day is siphoning away some of their most experienced Special Operations people at the very time their services are most in demand...

For more than a decade, military colleges have produced study after study warning of the potential pitfalls of giving contractors too large a role on the battlefield. The claimed cost savings are exaggerated or illusory, the studies argue. Questions of coordination and oversight have not been adequately resolved. Troops could be put at risk...

of course I do, all my ideas are perfect.
July one all US troops and support leave, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld keep their collective mouths shut, Congress presents Iraq situation to the UN Security Council, Congress accepts whatever is voted in by the UN, the US pays costs appropriate for rebuilding.

dys, I would only add that the reconstruction contracts go out to bid.

The only bad thing I can see happening is some developed nation setting up a puppet government complete with WMD's, and creating another dictatorship. No one would do that, would they?

It is now irrelevant whether: Bush is incompetent or a genius or something in between; saint or devil or something in between. ... So we got him "for better or worse". He requires our help not our hinderance.