You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq-Jordan
Powell: Iraq Pullout Request Not Likely
2004-05-15
U.S.-led coalition forces would leave Iraq if a new interim government should ask them to, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Friday, but such a request is unlikely. Powell said the United States believes that a U.N. resolution passed last year and Iraqi administrative law provide necessary authority for coalition forces to remain even beyond the scheduled June 30 handover of government to Iraqis. "We're there to support the Iraqi people and protect them and the new government," Powell said at a news conference with his counterparts from other Group of Eight nations preparing for an economic summit next month. "I have no doubt the new government will welcome our presence and am losing no sleep over whether they will ask us to stay."
Nod, nod; wink, wink; nudge, nudge.
But were the new government to say it could handle security, "then we would leave," Powell said. L. Paul Bremer, the top U.S. administrator in Iraq, told a delegation from Iraq's Diyala province Friday that American forces would not stay where they were unwelcome. "If the provisional government asks us to leave, we will leave," Bremer said, referring to an interim Iraqi administration due to take power June 30. "I don't think that will happen, but obviously we don't stay in countries where we're not welcome."

Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman had told the House International Relations Committee on Thursday that although it was unlikely, the Iraqi interim government could tell U.S. troops to leave. But Lt. Gen. Walter Sharp, who was also at the hearing, contradicted his statement, telling the panel that only an elected government could order a U.S. withdrawal. White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters Friday that the Iraqi people still want help from the United States and coalition forces to provide security. "Iraqi security forces are not fully equipped and trained to provide for their own security and defend their country against terrorists," McClellan said. "And so, after the transfer of sovereignty on June 30, we expect to continue to partner with the Iraqi forces to improve the security situation."

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said at the news conference with Powell that stability in Iraq would not be served by an abrupt withdrawal. "But were the government that takes over to ask us to leave, we would leave," Straw said. Britain is the main force other than the United States in the U.S.-led military coalition that brought down Iraq's authoritarian government last year and is trying to restore calm in the aftermath. Powell said he expected the commander of coalition forces in Iraq to remain an American and report up his chain of command to maintain military effectiveness. Also, a consultative process can be established so the U.S. commander and the American ambassador kept the Iraqi government informed of their activities, he said. French officials are urging that the new Iraqi government be given the power to evict U.S. forces if it so chooses. "There has to be a complete break with the past, with the Iraqi government replacing the coalition," said French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier.
Funny, I don't recall him asking for a break from the past when Saddam was around.
He repeated that France would not now nor in the future send troops to Iraq but said France would join its European partners in helping to rebuild Iraq.
Uh huh, sure you will.
Posted by:Steve White

#11  Truce, JFM. One of my favorite stories as a young man was La Chanson de Roland. My people left France in 1066 and returned only sporadically thereafter. The French fighting man has always acquitted himself well but has had to endure indifferent leadership.
Posted by: RWV   2004-05-15 3:37:24 PM  

#10  Hmm... just in time. The frogs still got fight.
Posted by: BJ Pershing   2004-05-15 2:41:50 PM  

#9  I am going to sit down and audit this class in WWI history.
Posted by: badanov   2004-05-15 1:54:10 PM  

#8  Are you talking about the mutinies consecutive to the Nivelle offensives? The tropps rebelled because they were tired of how lazy generals were sacrifying them, generals were never held accountable and who didn't care about soldiers lives. Foch told "I have two hundred thousand men to spend". That was the kind of things who pushed the French soldiers to mutiny. And of course the high generals reacted by calling them cowards as this diverted the responsibilities from them.

Now the Nivelle mutinies were suffocated by Petain who sent only less than fifty men to the firing squad. (This, and his handling of Verdun made Petain immensely popular as the only general who cared for the troops, you can't understand Vichy without thinking in veteran's veneration of Petain). Another point is that the mutinies ended when the Germans tried to take advantage of them through an offensive. As told by a French WWI soldier "Wars are made to be won" and the mutineers were not willing to let the Germans win this one.
Posted by: JFM   2004-05-15 1:48:54 PM  

#7  Every tenth man. Sorry about that. The inflexibility of the French officer corps was one of the main reasons the French were bled white in the First War. For every one like Petain, there were a dozen like Foch. They had absolutely no qualms about sending their troops into the grinder.

JFM, if you like pictures of WWI, try Andy Simpson's "Hot Blood & Cold Steel: Life & Death in the Trenches of the First World War"
Posted by: RWV   2004-05-15 1:39:24 PM  

#6  JFM, I am well aware of the French armies' performance in WWI, particularly the action at Fort Vaux at Verdun. They fought well but only the Germans advancing beyond their plan and the German High Command's intent to bleed the French white at Verdun kept them from overrunning the place in the initial attack. Also, shortly after this was the time when the French pulled divisions out of the line for "cowardice" and shot every tent man "pour encourager les autres."

Individual soldiers may have fought well, but the French Army has been a disaster for a long time.
Posted by: RWV   2004-05-15 1:24:30 PM  

#5  RWV

I suggest you look at http://www.war1418.com/battleverdun/

and at this picture

http://www.war1418.com/battleverdun/battleverdun66/foto-aanval01.jpg

Then shut up.

And for your info a number of Legionnaires are French on false names. And _all_ officers are French. Do you really think it is the privates who lead officers into battle?
Posted by: JFM   2004-05-15 12:58:23 PM  

#4  The best response to this is a VIGOROUS and completely public investigation of the Oil for Food program. A public airing of French greed, graft, and perfidy is certainly in order.

I'm not sure how welcome the French would be in Iraq if the Iraqis knew how much Saddam paid the French to help him loot their country and oppress them.

As for French troops, with the exception of the Germans in the Foreign Legion, they haven't been worth much since Napoleon. Leave them at home to deal with the coming Islamic uprising in France.
Posted by: RWV   2004-05-15 10:59:09 AM  

#3  Of course, in one way, I guess we are sticking it to them. The louder they shout, the louder we don't listen.
Posted by: Infidel Bob   2004-05-15 10:13:53 AM  

#2  Man, I am so hoping that we can stick it to the French some day. The sooner, the better, too.
Posted by: Infidel Bob   2004-05-15 9:08:30 AM  

#1  Maybe Barnier is awaiting a translation of Colin Powell's statement. He doesn't seem to be picking up the gist of what Colin has repeatedly said. I am begining to wonder how large the downside is to just letting Putin have the joint. As long as we aren't funding the French rebuild, the Iraqis can do whatever they want.
Posted by: Super Hose   2004-05-15 4:02:42 AM  

00:00