| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| US agrees to international control of its troops in Iraq? |
| 2003-11-17 |
| No, NO, NO! 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. Javier not too infrequently talks out of his ass. 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." But not til the Iraqis are ready! He added: "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." Criminy, what’s next -- Kyoto? 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. If true that’s idiotic. It’s only illegitimate in the minds of the lefties who want us to fail. [Bush] 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." That’s good so far, Dubya. 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. If we’re just changing the hats we wear, fine — "Military Assistance Command" in Iraq works for me. 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. And who wouldn’t have forces to commit even if they did support us. They would need to be satisfied that 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. Given the UN record in other places lately this would be a disaster. 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. We should agree to stay til the job’s done. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #21 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. Mr. Solana would get better results if he donned ruby red slippers, said that while spinning three times on his tippy toes, then clicks his heels together. He's trying to set the terms of the debate ahead of time, hoping that his belief that Bush is a stupid fool proves true. It won't, and his next interview will be a scathing attack on Bush's unilateralism and disregard for world opinion. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-11-17 2:31:37 PM |
| #20 Boy was that a smooothly written artical. Silky. Bulldog, is that Eaton? What? |
| Posted by: Lucky 2003-11-17 1:36:44 PM |
| #19 In other news, Osama Bin Laden has overthrown the Chinese government and declared himself the Emperor of China. India has welcomed the change in rule, declareing it's full loyalty and support to Emperor Bin Laden. Pakistan has yet to comment, most likely because of the Jihadi's setting off Pakistans nuclear arsonal when a pig converted to Islam. |
| Posted by: Charles 2003-11-17 1:21:42 PM |
| #18 Guess I was confused. I agree it's less fun without the .ster. BTW, I did steal the font size bit from him - an "homage' as our Frog friends would say (snort). |
| Posted by: Spot 2003-11-17 1:18:50 PM |
| #17 Got the sarcasm Spot.... Your imaginative use of font size reminded me of someone who seems to be missing in acton recently. So what's happened to (.)? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-11-17 12:02:59 PM |
| #16 Shipman- I was sarcastic (of course!). Even if the "international control" were to take over the overwhelming presence would be the US. The reason so few countries have come so far is that the bullets are still flying. Hell, the UN has cut and run already. Others are rethinking after the Italian bombing. The only way anything positive will get done is is the US does it. |
| Posted by: Spot 2003-11-17 11:36:32 AM |
| #15 Consider the source - The Independent! It is a left-wing cousin of the Guardian and when it does try to center it is usually in the area of wishful thinking and getting someone like Solano to provide enough doubtful substance to agree with its supposition. |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2003-11-17 11:14:54 AM |
| #14 I've heard of this issue being raised. NATO could come in possibly. I'm not opposed to the idea on purely pragmatic reasons. It may bring more domestic legitimacy. International legitimacy still more suspect, but I'd imagine it may help our standing w/EU countries (not that I personally care). Yes, there would be a U.S. OIC (officer in charge). Therefore, if they bring NATO in -fine by me. However, don't see the vote getting passed the French or Belgians. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-11-17 10:56:21 AM |
| #13 The United States accepts that to avoid humiliating failure in Iraq it needs to bring its forces quickly under international control... Translation: We cannot accept a US success in Iraq - therefore, let us in on it ASAP, while we can still spin it as failure, so that we can take the credit for the inevitable success. |
| Posted by: eyeyeye 2003-11-17 10:46:52 AM |
| #12 Swiggles: There are several examples of US troops being under foreign command in WWII: e.g. the "ABDA" naval task force under Admiral Doorman, US divisions controlled by the British 2d Army (my dad's old Ike jacket has a 2d Army shoulder patch). 'Course, that's all something of a special case. |
| Posted by: Mike 2003-11-17 10:28:25 AM |
| #11 Spot? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-11-17 10:20:51 AM |
| #10 "It has never happened. Even if we operate under the auspices of NATO, it is always with a US commander. " And that was precisely the way it worked in Kosovo - a Nato operation, but under US SACEUR (whose name I wont mention) Now to get that we had to armtwist the French, ,and we had some operational difficulties - getting a Nato commitee to approve operational decisions, IIRC. Both would be problems in Iraq. And its not clear that it matters much - the Iraqis are more interested in an elected IRAQI role to increase legitimacy, not an international one (much less NATO) Might help Dubya domestically, though. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-11-17 10:04:16 AM |
| #9 Of course international (UN) control would lend legitimacy. Of course the attacks would stop, birds would sing, flowers would bloom - ROTFLMAO! |
| Posted by: Spot 2003-11-17 9:14:39 AM |
| #8 Let me make something clear, something which makes it clear that this article is a pure lie. It is ILLEGAL for US troops to be under foreign control. Let's repeat that, it is against US law for US troops to be under a foreign commander. It has never happened. Even if we operate under the auspices of NATO, it is always with a US commander. In Afghanistan for instance, our troops operate independently of the international troops. Pretty simple really. So Solana can just shut his pie-hole. |
| Posted by: Swiggles 2003-11-17 9:05:52 AM |
| #7 If this were Clinton, I would belive it. This may be an attempt to distract Bush during his visit to London. In a way, it is an attempt to shift, in the short term, the historical narrative. |
| Posted by: Dragon Fly 2003-11-17 8:28:57 AM |
| #6 This report is bullshit, and I'd love to know what Solano and the writer of this piece are smoking. Not only are we not going to be pulling our troops out of Iraq anytime soon, they're going to be there for as long as they damn well need to be to prosecute the WoT to its conclusion: in other words, once we're done as occupiers we'll be there as guests, with permanent basing rights. That's one of the reasons WHY we're in Iraq to begin with. International control of American troops? Oh yeah, as soon as pigs start flying backwards... This report is either the product of some seriously delusional thinking in Europe, or it's an attempt at mischief-making. Either way, it's crap. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2003-11-17 6:04:20 AM |
| #5 Chill out, guys. The plan seems to be to declare anything that goes wrong in Iraq to be a catastrophe and that everything the US does to be a failure. It makes the Lefties, Euros, and UN types feel good about themselves. I've assumed from day one that it was our intention to hand over control to the sane Iraqis when neccesary. The only question was when. Apparently the decision is the "when" is pretty soon. That's no big deal. And as for Solano -- hey, when he starts offering real troops for stabilizing Iraq, then he'll have a damn say in what is happening there. The dumbest notion I've heard over the last few months is that there's some magic diplomatic formula that will somehow get significant (not just a brigade or two) French and/or German forces to Iraq -- that was never going to happen. They can't get there, and they couldn't be supported if they did get there. |
| Posted by: Patrick Phillips 2003-11-17 3:23:02 AM |
| #4 Ahhh, State is involved. If this happens, W won't be re-elected. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-11-17 1:34:24 AM |
| #3 He added: "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." Uh, the United Nations is an international organization. 12 years, 17 resolutions, 1441, serious consequences, 15-0. Does any of that stuff ring a bell you dipshit? |
| Posted by: g wiz 2003-11-17 1:23:59 AM |
| #2 This sounds like Solana is trying to push Dubya into a corner by dictating what he will do and when he will do it. He should talk to his eurocommie circlejerk buddy Jack Chirac about how well THAT works out. I wouldn't be surprised if Solano's 'meeting' with Bush gets delayed because of schedule conflicts. I think the admin recognizes the 'eee-yu' is already a non-starter. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-11-17 1:17:44 AM |
| #1 I am very confident that this article is complete bs and we are under no circumstances turning over authority of american forces to international control. All this is, is Javier's wet dream. The independent is pathetic for printing this article as news and not an editorial. |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2003-11-17 1:01:50 AM |