UN and Iraq

[shahani]

Seems Bush, in his infinite wisdom, has now decided that he wants soldiers from other countries involved in "stabilizing" Iraq.

While this may take the heat away from US soldiers what will be the implications on oil-grabbing, reconstruction contracts (read Halliburton) and the 2004 elections?

Will Bush be seen as a President who backed off?

Or a dynamic leader who makes mid-course corrections as and when necessary?

Full story here.

[Epidemic]

AFAIK bush always wanted a multinational force. The fact is that some countries resisted the thought. Now the countries who felt snubbed by US actions must decide if they are willing to allow thousands of innocent iraqis to suffer and die to make sure the USA looks bad.

Kinda a mean attempt at a lesson for an indirect dig at the USA.

[J-Excel]

I think this is great news. It does create a problem for the liberals though. Since they feel impelled to attack Bush about anything and everything they will have to find a way to twist this great news into something horrible. When they do it'll just sway more of us moderates to the Right. I know I've never considered voting for a Republican president until now.

[RADAR1797]

People seem to forget this is already a multinational force. There are Poles, Brits, Ausies, Italians, etc... in country. This is just more media falacious reporting.

-RADAR

[Epidemic]

I agree that it is multinational already. But the players with big pockets are not joining in.

[shahani]

Scott, there is a multinational force but everything is under US control. Other countries don't want to send in their soldiers who could get killed just to make Bush look good.

They want a piece of the action.

Wouldn't you?

It is only yesterday that the Poles go some rudimentary control of a small part of Iraq.

But before any nation or institution will commit soldiers, they will insist, rightly, for a piece of the pie.

And Bush will have to concede or accept continuing US casualties. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) just back from Iraq says the situation is extremely fragile and if stability is not forthcoming in a couple of months, things will get catastrophic.

Bush now realizes this and also realizes that unless Iraq is at least enroute to stability 2004 will be a difficult prize for him. It is his desperation, as I see it, that is leading to these concessions.

IMHO.

[Epidemic]

Bush now realizes this and also realizes that unless Iraq is at least enroute to stability 2004 will be a difficult prize for him. It is his desperation, as I see it, that is leading to these concessions.

Or perhaps it is the fact that he has always wanted more nations to participate but since they will not conceed to our demands we are negotiating a more agreable plan to achieve this ends.

since the ultimate goal is a free Iraq and the costs of freeing it are too great for one nation to bear one will probably need to conceed something. Or do you suggest a stead fast approach.

[shahani]

I don't suggest anything to Bush. I think he's digging a big hole to jump in.

[Epidemic]

Given current situation how would you address things.

I think we both can agree that handing the government over at this point would have bad results for all parties involved.

So given that military presense is still a necessity what would be the most prudent course of action if you were Al Gore, Al Sharpton, Kerry or Bush?

[MTAtech]

I didn't want to get into this mess in the first place. Now, the mess is made. We are less safe now, increased terrorism not reduced it and are paying the bill ourselves without allies.

Now that the mess is made how do we clean it up? The only way to help clean this up is to internationalize it and let other countries share in calling the shots. This may help gain legitimacy.