Good news for all involved if true.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=464488
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=464488
US agrees to international control of its troops in Iraq
- Thread starter Trawler
- Start date
I find this a rather pointless statement, the US wanted Nato to be the headline act originally, it is hardly a huge step to say it may be under Nato control, now UN control would be different, and I might add I would not support it, the UN is great as a debating society, but when people are dying sometmes one must do something instead of simply debate.
Talk of an exit strategy with the election coming up is increasingly worrying me. Feels like somalia all over again... I have a hard time to see Bush tolerate us troops dying during the 2-3 months before an election... Leaving Iraq in a half assed manner isnt a good thing tho if iraq can be allowed to field a 250-300 000 man army by next summer it might be doable. Itll be tight but doable... Id prefer western troops remain to keep an eye on the new cops tho.
Lets hope saddam gets caught by then. That might help to reduce the possibility of an iraqi civil war...
Lets hope saddam gets caught by then. That might help to reduce the possibility of an iraqi civil war...
Joe DeFuria
Legend
fbg1 said:
Agree and disagree.
Baath / Sadam loyalists will never be completely neutralized. At some point, Iraq is going to have to be ruled and protected by Iraqi's.
It may sound harsh to say this, but as long as "Western Troops" continue to be the main target of the loyalists, Iraqi citizens simply will feel less compelled to fight back / fight for themselves. The real "test" of the Baath/Sadam loyalists, is going to be when Iraqis are patrolling.....and if the "loayalists" really are loyal to Sadam. If they start attacking Iraqis like they do coalition troops, then you can really start to see public opinion change.
As it is now, many Iraqis that aren't even loyal to Saddam don't want the U.S. (or anyone else) in their country "ruling" them...so they don't really care if Americans are killed.
Of course, we just don't want to just leave Iraqi's defenseless. So planning the "exit significant amounts of Coalition Troops" needs to be done when there is some confidence level that Iraqis can fend for themselves. At what time this occurs...I do not know. Nor does anyone really. All we have is a guess. We can plan around that guess, but we shouldn't (and I doubt we would) plan for 6-9 months from now...and if traning doesn't go according to plan, proceed to withdraw anyway.
pax said:
I'm not so sure Civil War can be avoided. What I mean is, whether or not Sadam is killed, or whenever we end up leaving....the reality of Civil War wil depend on whether or not Iraqis can get along with each other.
The U.S. was pretty damn united when we fought for and received our independence, and yet it was less than a century later that we engaged in our own civil war.
In other words, even if 100% of Iraqi Citizens agreed it was a good thing for Sadam to be ousted...that doesn't make the threat of civil war and less real.
Joe DeFuria said:
I know this is an aside, but are you kidding? We almost broke up into 13 separate countries after the war ended. And there were plenty of people opposed to us even becoming independent from Britain. If I remember correctly, tories may have even been a majority.
Im not sure but I think I remember reading the us revolution was split about a third for revolution a third loyalists and a third neutral... been a while since junior high history class tho ;P...
I know the threat of civil is high... but every little bit helps. I hope capturing saddam will help as I think the kurds and shiites are truly tired of fighting... its been almost continous for 20 years now...
But this situation is very close to lebanon... it make take some more time before some kind of arrangement can stop fighting. We cant expect western forces in iraq forever if they fight... I would see longterm peacekeeping tho if it stops. One thing I havent seen is internecine fighting yet... at least not much to indicate its about to take an upward swing... that could change once the western forces withdraw and focus is moved eslewhere...
Lets hope not...
I know the threat of civil is high... but every little bit helps. I hope capturing saddam will help as I think the kurds and shiites are truly tired of fighting... its been almost continous for 20 years now...
But this situation is very close to lebanon... it make take some more time before some kind of arrangement can stop fighting. We cant expect western forces in iraq forever if they fight... I would see longterm peacekeeping tho if it stops. One thing I havent seen is internecine fighting yet... at least not much to indicate its about to take an upward swing... that could change once the western forces withdraw and focus is moved eslewhere...
Lets hope not...
US agrees to international control of its troops in Iraq
By Leonard Doyle and Stephen Castle in Brussels
17 November 2003
The United States accepts that to avoid humiliating failure in Iraq it needs to bring its forces quickly under international control and speed the handover of power, Javier Solana, the European Union foreign policy chief, has said. Decisions along these lines will be made in the "coming days", Mr Solana told The Independent.
The comments, signalling a major policy shift by the US, precede President George Bush's state visit this week to London, during which he and Tony Blair will discuss an exit strategy for forces in Iraq.
Mr Solana underlined the change of mood in Washington, saying: "Everybody has moved, including the United States, because the United States has a real problem and when you have a real problem you need help." There is a "growing consensus" that the transfer of power has to be accelerated, he said. "How fast can it be done? I would say the faster the better."
He added: "The forces will have to be there under aa different chapeau. The more the international community is incorporated under the international organisations [the better]. That is the lesson I think everyone is learning. Our American friends are learning that. We will see in the coming days decisions along these lines."
The Bush administration spelt out over the weekend its new plans for the faster transfer of power from Americans to the Iraqis, with a transitional government now scheduled to take over from the end of June. Before, US officials had said that Iraqi leaders should write a constitution first, then hold elections.
As the EU's foreign policy representative, Mr Solana has been playing a significant, behind-the-scenes role. Until now, the US had resisted putting the allied forces under international auspices, although there is growing support in Washington for a Nato role.
Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, arrives in Brussels tonight for talks with EU ministers, which he will combine with a meeting with the retiring Nato secretary general, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. Diplomats say that Mr Powell is expected to "test the water" about the involvement of the transatlantic alliance in Iraq. The litany of setbacks, growing US casualties and the recent killing of 18 Italian servicemen has brought intense domestic and international pressure on the Bush administration to give the occupying force more legitimacy.
Eager to counter this domestic unease, the American military sought to advertise their latest crack-down. They declared that they had fired a satellite-guided missile at what they said was an insurgents' training camp west of Kirkuk.
But there was more grim news on Saturday with the collision of two Black Hawk helicopters after one was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade. Seventeen American soldiers died, the worst single loss of life in one incident since President Bush ordered the US-led invasion.
He insisted yesterday that the US would not "cut and run". In an interview with Breakfast with Frost on BBC1, the President said the United States would not spend "years and years" in Iraq. But he rejected as "not a fair comment" claims that the US was unprepared for winning peace. Mounting violence in Iraq was "nothing more than a power grab". He added: "There are some foreign fighters, mujahedin types or al-Qa'ida, or al-Qa'ida affiliates involved, as well."
America's chief post-war administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, also suggested that US-led forces would remain on a different basis. "Our presence here will change from an occupation to an invited presence," he said. "I'm sure the Iraqi government is going to want to have coalition forces here for its own security for some time.
There have been no specifics yet about how the international community would control the mainly American and British forces in Iraq. Nato remains the only strong possibility because it would provide international credibility while leaving control with a military organisation which Washington dominates.
Nato has already proved its willingness to act outside its traditional sphere of operations by taking a role in Afghanistan. But to allow it to deploy in Iraq would mean getting the approval of all 19 Nato allies including France, Germany and Belgium, all staunch opponents of the war.
They would need to be satisfiedthat the UN had been given a sufficient role in the political control of Iraq. Diplomats say that the US and Britain will need to be certain that no one will block an Iraq mission before they make a request.
With the US-led occupation likely to be declared over the next year, Mr Bremer said that work would start on a constitutional settlement. "We'll have a bill of rights. We'll recognise equality for all citizens. We'll recognise an independent judiciary. We'll talk about a federal government," he said.
Mr Bremer explained that the Americans would work with the Iraqi Governing Council in writing the interim constitution. There would also be a side agreement dealing with security and the presence of American and coalition forces in Iraq, he said.
Al-Qa'ida claimed responsibility for the bombings of two Istanbul synagogues which killed at least 23 people and vowed further attacks, the London-based Arab newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi said yesterday.
By Leonard Doyle and Stephen Castle in Brussels
17 November 2003
The United States accepts that to avoid humiliating failure in Iraq it needs to bring its forces quickly under international control and speed the handover of power, Javier Solana, the European Union foreign policy chief, has said. Decisions along these lines will be made in the "coming days", Mr Solana told The Independent.
The comments, signalling a major policy shift by the US, precede President George Bush's state visit this week to London, during which he and Tony Blair will discuss an exit strategy for forces in Iraq.
Mr Solana underlined the change of mood in Washington, saying: "Everybody has moved, including the United States, because the United States has a real problem and when you have a real problem you need help." There is a "growing consensus" that the transfer of power has to be accelerated, he said. "How fast can it be done? I would say the faster the better."
He added: "The forces will have to be there under aa different chapeau. The more the international community is incorporated under the international organisations [the better]. That is the lesson I think everyone is learning. Our American friends are learning that. We will see in the coming days decisions along these lines."
The Bush administration spelt out over the weekend its new plans for the faster transfer of power from Americans to the Iraqis, with a transitional government now scheduled to take over from the end of June. Before, US officials had said that Iraqi leaders should write a constitution first, then hold elections.
As the EU's foreign policy representative, Mr Solana has been playing a significant, behind-the-scenes role. Until now, the US had resisted putting the allied forces under international auspices, although there is growing support in Washington for a Nato role.
Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, arrives in Brussels tonight for talks with EU ministers, which he will combine with a meeting with the retiring Nato secretary general, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. Diplomats say that Mr Powell is expected to "test the water" about the involvement of the transatlantic alliance in Iraq. The litany of setbacks, growing US casualties and the recent killing of 18 Italian servicemen has brought intense domestic and international pressure on the Bush administration to give the occupying force more legitimacy.
Eager to counter this domestic unease, the American military sought to advertise their latest crack-down. They declared that they had fired a satellite-guided missile at what they said was an insurgents' training camp west of Kirkuk.
But there was more grim news on Saturday with the collision of two Black Hawk helicopters after one was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade. Seventeen American soldiers died, the worst single loss of life in one incident since President Bush ordered the US-led invasion.
He insisted yesterday that the US would not "cut and run". In an interview with Breakfast with Frost on BBC1, the President said the United States would not spend "years and years" in Iraq. But he rejected as "not a fair comment" claims that the US was unprepared for winning peace. Mounting violence in Iraq was "nothing more than a power grab". He added: "There are some foreign fighters, mujahedin types or al-Qa'ida, or al-Qa'ida affiliates involved, as well."
America's chief post-war administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, also suggested that US-led forces would remain on a different basis. "Our presence here will change from an occupation to an invited presence," he said. "I'm sure the Iraqi government is going to want to have coalition forces here for its own security for some time.
There have been no specifics yet about how the international community would control the mainly American and British forces in Iraq. Nato remains the only strong possibility because it would provide international credibility while leaving control with a military organisation which Washington dominates.
Nato has already proved its willingness to act outside its traditional sphere of operations by taking a role in Afghanistan. But to allow it to deploy in Iraq would mean getting the approval of all 19 Nato allies including France, Germany and Belgium, all staunch opponents of the war.
They would need to be satisfiedthat the UN had been given a sufficient role in the political control of Iraq. Diplomats say that the US and Britain will need to be certain that no one will block an Iraq mission before they make a request.
With the US-led occupation likely to be declared over the next year, Mr Bremer said that work would start on a constitutional settlement. "We'll have a bill of rights. We'll recognise equality for all citizens. We'll recognise an independent judiciary. We'll talk about a federal government," he said.
Mr Bremer explained that the Americans would work with the Iraqi Governing Council in writing the interim constitution. There would also be a side agreement dealing with security and the presence of American and coalition forces in Iraq, he said.
Al-Qa'ida claimed responsibility for the bombings of two Istanbul synagogues which killed at least 23 people and vowed further attacks, the London-based Arab newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi said yesterday.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Clashman said:
Of course.
What I'm trying to say is that we were certainly United (for the most part) in our desire to gain our independence from England.
That doesn't mean that we were united as a single country in terms of self-governance.
So, even if All of Iraq is
1) Happy that Saddam is gone
2) Happy to be given the opportunity to be a self-governing democracy
Does not in any way diminish the risk of Civil War.
I will guarantee you that if the following occurs:
1) U.S. hands over Iraq to Iraq
2) Years later, bloody civil war breaks out
The U.S. will be "blamed" for such a "bad thing" happening.
And while indirectly, that may be true, that doesn't mean it's not the best course for Iraq to take. The U.S. went through a Civil war, and I'd say it was almost a necessity in our Country's evolution.
If Iraq is heading down the path of Civil War...then I dare-say that the sooner they get it over with, the better.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 2197
- Games
