The US, UN & Iraq II

And the snow settled on the land and the magic that was in that snow blinded the eyes of men so that they could not see and those that could not see heard the word and the word was good, that man shall not take up arms against man and that man shall reach up and become something greather than he is and that something is good. The arm bearers shalt fall down and ask for forgiveness and twiseted psyches will become unravelled so that forked tongues become straight and words that once were spat out venomously are now caressing the cheeks of our once enemies and they in like kind respond.

And so it was that peace reigned and men lived in harmony for the greater good of all.

Amen

This is the full article from Ul's post. I don't think there's any doubt that Bush has been at fault on this. Certainly his Republican cohorts yesterday in the Senate blamed him on mike and before the cameras.

March 12, 2003
Panel Faults Bush on War Costs and Risks
By PATRICK E. TYLER

he cost of postwar reconstruction of Iraq will be at least $20 billion a year and will require the long-term deployment of 75,000 to 200,000 troops to prevent widespread instability and violence against former members of Saddam Hussein's government, a panel of national security experts say in a new study.

The panel, consisting of senior American officials from Republican and Democratic administrations, was organized by the Council on Foreign Relations. It concludes that President Bush has failed "to fully describe to Congress and the American people the magnitude of the resources that will be required to meet the post-conflict needs" of Iraq.

The panel was led by James R. Schlesinger, secretary of defense in the Nixon and Ford administrations, and Thomas R. Pickering, ambassador to the United Nations under Mr. Bush's father. Others on the panel included Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997 and is now retired, and Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick, who served in senior positions in the Reagan administration.

They urged Mr. Bush "to make clear to Congress, the American people and the people of Iraq that the United States will stay the course" in Iraq by financing a "multibillion-dollar" reconstruction program and seeking formal Congressional endorsement of it.

In Washington, meanwhile, Pentagon officials said yesterday that the Bush administration was planning to put Iraqi soldiers to work and to pay the salaries of more than two million Iraqi civil servants to enable them to rebuild their country if Saddam Hussein is ousted. But the officials declined to estimate how much such support would cost.

Through the Council on Foreign Relations report, the panel of experts and the council sounded an alarm that the Bush administration needed to be more forthcoming about the risks and costs of an extended occupation of Iraq.

One risk arises from the aspirations for independence by ethnic Kurds in the north, which could set off a conflict with Turkey. Another stems from the deep grievances of the Shiite population against the Sunni minority that has dominated the country since its founding. How political leaders are chosen and how Iraq's oil resources are managed also carry the seeds of conflict that will demand significant American resources.

Mr. Schlesinger, who also served President Nixon in the Office of Management and Budget, and later ran the C.I.A., said in an interview that while he was reasonably confidant that United States military forces would prevail in a brief war against the degraded army of Saddam Hussein, he was deeply worried about the unwillingness of the Bush administration to speak plainly about the much larger postwar costs and tasks. "It is not clear to me that the American people understand we are engaged in the long haul if we are to be successful," he said.

The report calls particular attention to the lack of planning and inadequate resources devoted to the humanitarian front after the war. Though Mr. Bush has created a new Pentagon Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, overall planning by international agencies like the World Food Program shows that only $30 million of a $120 million initial requirement for Iraq has been financed. The panel suggested that the White House request an immediate $3 billion for Iraq reconstruction tasks and food aid for the initial postwar phase.

To the extent the United States fails to move quickly to address the security and food needs of the more than 16 million Iraqis now dependent on the United Nations' oil-for-food program, Washington will quickly be blamed. "It would fuel the perception that the result of the U.S. intervention is an increase of humanitarian suffering," the report says.

In appended comments, James F. Dobbins, who served as a special envoy to Afghanistan in the current Bush administration, said that "even the lowest suggested requirement of 75,000 troops" to stabilize Iraq would mean "that every infantryman in the U.S. Army spend 6 months in Iraq out of every 18 to 24." The report gave credence to a recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, that 200,000 troops would be needed to police Iraq after a war. If that many troops are needed, the report says, the $20 billion a year estimate of costs "would be much greater."

At the Pentagon yesterday, two senior Defense Department officials, speaking to reporters on condition that they not be identified, said the new office charged with establishing a postwar administration hoped to be able to turn over control to an interim Iraqi government within months. But they did not say how they planned to root out the thousands of intelligence and security service agents that Mr. Hussein is known to have placed within virtually every government ministry.

The officials said Iraq's frozen assets might be tapped to pay for the Iraqi government salaries, or some of Iraq's oil revenues might be used to finance the interim government. That had not yet been decided, they said.

Gautam

I am told that your institute provides the finest education in the world and it is very very difficult to qualify----- but what probably makes you graduates more unique is the fantastic self discipline required to qualify and then to graduate. Well done!

Little clucking sound -- who laid the egg?

Thanks hiama, you made my day!!!!!!!!

Remember when, "PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people... And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon."

What happened to that promise? He seems to have gotten deaf all of a sudden to the world's voices, and those people who knocked those buildings down are still planning other terrorist attacks - maybe, at least that's what our intelligence keeps telling us. c.i.

deleted

Tartarin,
I hesitate to paste a full article because the the thread might get too long. ( I have cable and never notice a difference in loading a site).

c.i.,
I have heard some time ago that Germany is not willing to pay much to post war Iraq. Maybe Walter can help- I can't find a link.

What do you think about this?How Kofi Annan Can Stop the War
by Paul F. deLespinasse

According to recent reports, the United States may be about to warn the U.N. inspectors and reporters to leave Iraq within three days. The purpose of this warning will be to protect the inspectors and reporters from harm when U.S. forces attack Iraq, perhaps late next week.

The situation provides an interesting opportunity for U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. If the U.S. issues the expected warning, he can and should announce that the U.S. has no authority to evict the inspectors, who are United Nations employees. Furthermore, Annan can say that he will not withdraw the inspectors from Iraq unless he is ordered to do so by the U.N. Security Council or the inspectors report that they are not being allowed to do their job.

Any effort to get the Security Council to order the inspectors out under current circumstances would undoubtedly fail, and if by some miracle it did get the needed nine votes it would certainly be vetoed by France, Russia, or China.

Such an announcement by the Secretary General would have three very beneficial consequences. First, it is unlikely that President Bush and his advisors would proceed with an attack, which would be a public relations nightmare as long as the inspectors are still in Iraq.

Second, the announcement would not undermine the work of the inspectors, but could even increase their clout, and that of the Secretary General, vis-à-vis Saddam Hussein. As long as they remain, the inspectors would protect Iraq from an American attack, but if not given carte blanche to do their work they will leave.

Third, the announcement would become a precedent for greatly enhanced power to be exercised by the Secretary General of the United Nations. This person is the closest thing we have to a chief executive for the world, and he is in a position from which it is natural to consider the welfare of the people of the world as a whole.

Until now, the veto power enjoyed by the five permanent members of the Security Council (U.S., Great Britain, France, Russia, and China) has generally been considered to be a limit on the power of the United Nations. However by assuming the power to act on behalf of the human race unless the Security Council tells him he cannot, the Secretary General can make the veto work to increase his own power, and thus the power of the United Nations.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if today's tragic world conditions provided the opening for a great leap forward in our world institutions! If he seizes the opportunity fate has given him, Kofi Annan may well go down in history as a "Machiavelli for peace," one of the greatest people of the twenty first century.

And it will be the Bush Administration that made it all possible!

Paul F. deLespinasse is professor emeritus of political science at Adrian College in Michigan. He can be reached at [email protected].

I believe it is Bush who is between a rock and a hard place - of his own making. Please everyone, that's not as a comparison to Saddam who is under the rock (about 2.05 ton - called MOAB)

BillW, That's over 9 tons of explosives.
ul, If those UN inspectors are backed up with the pope and Dalai Lama, nobody in their right mind would drop bombs on Baghdad.

c.i.

perhaps you misunderestimate the Bush. he's a messenger of god you know.

c.i., creates its own mushroom cloud.

dyslexia, and he attacks me through the wallet, I feel it more and more each day. must tithe to the bush!

Ul -- I just posted it because it seemed as though some who responded to it hadn't read it!

Bush --and Blair -- are in trouble, though the Bush machine will find a way to smooth it out, I'm sure. Blair will be left dangling. I was doing some work in another part of the house and had the radio on. Same group of conservatives calling in to their same favorite local conservative talk show saying the same thing: None of us would vote for Bush again, but we keep reading the polls saying he's still popular. Popular with whom? they ask!

Could it be the message that he is about to send to North Korea?

Japanese Prime-Minister Backs Attack On Iraq[/size][/color]

This statement was made by the Japanese prime-minister Mr. Yasuhiro Nakasone in his interview to the Yomiuri Shimbun.

That at best is laughable!

steissd, did they annouce if they were going to send their one ship again?

Oh, that reminds me of a piece I heard on the radio this morning (no citation). The White House already has a series of Bush responses to every possible thing which might happen during an invasion. Script is written. PR is in place. That's not really surprising BUT about half way between Michael Moore and George Orwell.

Israeli monitor intercepts order: War starting on March 18

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Wednesday, March 12, 2003
TEL AVIV — The U.S. military has been ordered to launch a war against Iraq on March 18, an Israeli official said in a televised report.

Israeli government monitor, Michael Gurdus, reported on late Tuesday that the order was relayed by U.S. Central Command to all American forces in the Persian Gulf. Gurdus told Israel's Channel 2 television that he heard the order being relayed to U.S. fighter-jet pilots and others over U.S. military radio communications he intercepted.....

http://216.26.163.62/2003/ss_military_03_11.html


Today's UN Wire
http://www.unfoundation.org/unwire/current.asp#32535

Bill, IMO, for Japan it is unconstitutional to use their armed forces in foreign campaigns, they can only defend their islands. Well, I guess, U.S. and UK can win the war without direct Japanese military support. Political support is quite enough.