WASHINGTON, Sept. 2 — President Bush agreed today to begin negotiations in the United Nations Security Council to authorize a multinational force for Iraq but insisted that the troops be placed under American command, according to senior administration officials.
Mr. Bush's decision came in a meeting this afternoon with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. While not unexpected, it was a tacit admission that the current American-dominated force is stretched too thin. It also amounts to one of the most significant changes in strategy since the end of major combat in Iraq.
The White House acted just as a new Congressional study showed that the Army lacked the active-duty troops to keep the current occupation force in Iraq past March, without getting extra help from either other services and reserves or from other nations, or without spending tens of billions to vastly expand its size.
One senior official said that Mr. Bush's national security team envisions withdrawing the majority of American forces now in Iraq within 18 months to two years, and "making this peacekeeping operation look like the kind that are familiar to us," in Kosovo, Bosnia and other places where the United Nations has taken the major role.
But it is far from clear that France and Germany, which led the opposition to a Security Council resolution authorizing the war, will agree to the terms or the language that Mr. Powell plans to circulate, perhaps as early as late this week. India, Turkey and Pakistan have indicated they might contribute troops to a multi-national force, but only if it is authorized by a new United Nations resolution.
Another senior administration official said tonight that Mr. Bush and Mr. Powell discussed ways to persuade the Security Council members to create such a force, and added that Mr. Powell "is going to be working with our colleagues and allies to talk about language that can bring maximum, effective resources to bear" in Iraq.
The study, released today by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, was requested by Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, a critic of the Iraq war and the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, who was frustrated by the Bush administration's reluctance to discuss its personnel options in Iraq or the long-term cost of a sustained occupation force. The report said that if the Pentagon stuck to its plan of rotating active-duty Army troops out of Iraq after a year, it would be able to sustain a force of only 67,000 to 106,000 active duty and reserve Army and Marine forces. A larger force would put at risk the military's operations elsewhere around the globe, the study said.
With Mr. Bush concerned about the ramifications of continued daily casualties in Iraq and the possibility that he may need forces elsewhere, perhaps including the Korean Peninsula if the nuclear crisis there worsens, the need to draw more international forces became "very clear in the past few weeks," a senior State Department official said today.
Last week, floating what appeared to be a trial balloon, the deputy secretary of state, Richard L. Armitage, said the United States was considering a multinational force that would be under the United Nations flag but, he added, an "American would be the U.N. commander." That was essentially the model for American forces stationed in South Korea after the end of the Korean War, 50 years ago, and it has been repeated elsewhere in the world. Currently, there are about 180,000 American troops in Iraq and Kuwait and 21,000 non-American troops, about half of them from Britain.
Military planners have long said the United States will require substantial assistance from other countries and from Iraqis to remain in the country over the long term, and today's study underscored that need. It is also the first time a government agency has placed a date on the point when the American military may buckle under the strain of the Iraqi deployment unless it gets significantly more help from other countries.
"When you connect the dots, this report shows we cannot possibly sustain the mission in Iraq at current U.S. active-duty troop strength, even if we do get modestly more allied help," said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution. "The only hope otherwise is to turn the security mission entirely back to the Iraqis within one to two years, which is unlikely."
The limiting factor for the Pentagon is not necessarily money. Rather, the problem is the Army's need to keep occupying troops fresh using a unit rotation system, where a unit serves in Iraq for 6 to 12 months and then comes home for rest and training, replaced by another unit. The report says the Pentagon does not have enough personnel to keep the troops fresh and still conduct operations in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia and Korea.
"The need to maintain levels of training and readiness, limit family separation and involuntary mobilization and retain high-quality personnel would most likely constrain the U.S. occupation force to be smaller than its current size," the report said.
There was one bit of good news for the administration in the report: The budget office said the Pentagon's recent estimate that it was spending about $3.9 billion a month in Iraq might be overstated. That figure may include some one-time costs that would not be necessary in a longer occupation, the report said.
The report's authors acknowledged that they did not evaluate the potential for allies to contribute to the occupation force. The report also did not comment on the impact of Iraqi security forces on the calculation.
The American military could field a force of up to 106,000 if it breaks with the past and uses Marine Corps units, Army Special Forces groups and National Guard combat units in Iraq, the report says. Such units have generally not been used for peacekeeping, and the budget office said using them would bring the cost of the occupation to $19 billion a year.
Alternatively, the Pentagon could increase the size of the Army to meet its new demands. Recruiting, training and equipping two new Army divisions would require an up-front cost of up to $19 billion and take five years, the report said, and it would cost an extra $9 billion to $10 billion a year to put in place in Iraq. That would bring the total cost of the occupation force up to 129,000 troops and cost up to $29 billion a year, the report said.
Senator Byrd said the report proved the Bush administration failed to inform the nation of the true costs of invading Iraq, and said the United States must now get support from NATO and the United Nations to sustain the occupation.
Col. Jay DeFrank, a Pentagon spokesman, said that the Defense Department had not had a chance to review and analyze today's report, but that it would make sure that commanders get the force they need.
posted on September 4, 2003 06:53:02 AM new
It's obvious that the Bush administration can't control the chaos in Iraq. The only answer now is UN help and in order to get that help, George Bush will have to relinquish control of Iraq to the UN.
posted on September 4, 2003 08:58:05 AM new
Helen I'm afraid you are right. Bush will have to get off his high horse or and release control to the UN And if he does that all his oil rich buddies will be ready to kick his A-S. Bush is in a pool of quick sand and sinking fast.
posted on September 4, 2003 09:17:47 AM newSenator Byrd said the report proved the Bush administration failed to inform the nation of the true costs of invading Iraq
Oh yes, the senile old KKK member. Biggest pork barrel spender in the US. Maybe he'll contribute the millions he takes from taxpayers to support our efforts in Iraq. Most likely not though.
There is no way the Bush administration could have predicted the costs involved.....how would they have possibly known up front.
And have we been able to predict the 'true costs' of any war the US has been involved in before this?
posted on September 4, 2003 09:20:02 AM new
None of the current candidates now running on the democratic ticket are going to beat Bush in 2004. But enjoy your fantasy while you can.
posted on September 4, 2003 09:35:35 AM new
Very true Linda... I figure they have about 13 months to have a "dream" then the reality will set in George will have won in November...
posted on September 4, 2003 09:43:14 PM new
The Washington Post
The Associated Press
Thursday, September 4, 2003; 11:39 PM
WASHINGTON - The bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad was "a breakthrough, a sad one" that changed attitudes at the United Nations and is allowing the Bush administration to seek a resolution for more international support in Iraq, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Thursday.
Wolfowitz said the issue of a U.N. resolution "didn't sort of emerge out of nowhere a few days ago. It's been on our agenda ever since the fall of Baghdad."
The Bush administration's offer on Wednesday to share power with the United Nations was widely seen as a change of tactics resulting from the rising costs, mounting casualties and growing criticism of slow progress in rebuilding Iraq. The Pentagon was considered particularly wary of a big U.N. role.
But Wolfowitz said the administration always understood a U.N. resolution would be important in attracting international support.
"I think we had a breakthrough, a sad one, but the bombing of the U.N. headquarters I think changed the atmosphere" at the United Nations, he said. "And it looks like we can move forward in that area."
He said when Secretary-General Kofi Annan agreed last week that a multinational force would have to be under U.S. command "that really solved our principal concerns on the military side, and we embrace that quite eagerly."
posted on September 4, 2003 09:58:58 PM new
LOL@Wolfowitz!
Those guys should stop lying and focus on the problem. Now, in order to get help from France and Germany they will have to make some serious concessions.
Linda, I've been having problems posting a message tonight... think that I'll uninstall fire wall protection now and see if that helps.
posted on September 4, 2003 10:36:23 PM new
Helen you could always ask Secretary-General Kofi if they discussed prior to today. After all the US did offer protection to the UN workers and that cleric that was murdered, and it was refused. Now that the terrorist have chosen to bomb the UN building, killing the UN workers that were there to HELP the Iraqi people...maybe they're seeing it differently. They might understand the attacks on Americans, but I'd bet they were quite surprised that THEY were targeted.
I'm always surprise [but shouldn't be by now] at how you appear to take almost any side against your own government/country.
Your point on France and Germany sounds filled with glee...joy that OUR country might be put in that position. I ask you all the time, just who's side are you on? This goes way beyond your not liking Bush...to the point you'd like to see your own country humilated???? I just don't understand that.
But, in my opinion, it will be the reverse of what you suggest. It will be France and Germany who will want to be involved if they have any hope of EVER seeing any oil flowing in their direction.
posted on September 4, 2003 11:49:47 PM new
Nothing will drive the morality of war home to Americans better than a huge US spending drain, through the Iraq occupation.
I know that, you know that, UN knows that, Iraqis know that, and so does the rest of the world.
But that’s ok for some, just cut back on health care and education for American citizens that need it most.
Send your kids to military schools.
The ‘TRUE’ ruling classes, won’t need to.
“It will be France and Germany who will want to be involved if they have any hope of EVER seeing any oil flowing in their direction.”
That’s ‘right’ Linda, ‘standover’ threats, seem to have been the standard policy for many decades.
Such is the beauty of the global economy, he that spends the most, gets the most (errors of judgment aside). But generally, it seems that as one’s relative wealth diminishes, so does their sphere of influence.
posted on September 5, 2003 05:30:44 AM new
You are wrong Linda. I'm not gleeful over your adminstration's miserable failures which have led to American and Iraqi deaths. But that's a never ending line that you spout about me because you have nothing better to say. I really feel sorry for you and your efforts to defend Bush. Your unquestioning loyalty is remarkable!
"But it is far from clear that France and Germany, which led the opposition to a Security Council resolution authorizing the war, will agree to the terms or the language that Mr. Powell plans to circulate, perhaps as early as late this week. India, Turkey and Pakistan have indicated they might contribute troops to a multi-national force, but only if it is authorized by a new United Nations resolution."
"When you connect the dots, this report shows we cannot possibly sustain the mission in Iraq at current U.S. active-duty troop strength, even if we do get modestly more allied help," said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution. "The only hope otherwise is to turn the security mission entirely back to the Iraqis within one to two years, which is unlikely."
[ edited by Helenjw on Sep 5, 2003 05:32 AM ]
posted on September 5, 2003 06:26:40 AM new
Ad for Foreign troops:
Help Wanted:
Pompous, arrogant unilateralist nation has contract entry-level (cannon fodder) positions available at our exciting new Iraq location! Duties include search and destroy functions; rounding up and interrogating locals; guarding oil facilities and other places deemed important by employer; dodging bullets, RPGs, and assorted home-made munitions; pretending to be hot on the trail of Saddam Hussein, al Qaida, or WMD; and looking upbeat while your comrades are wounded or killed on a daily basis. No experience necessary. We'll train the right nations. Required skills: A willingness to lean into the strike zone and take one for the team. Benefits: An increase in terrorist activity inside the applicant's borders. Chance for advancement: None. Non-UNion only.
-------------------------------------------------
Bush just needs some foreign cannon fodder to die rather than Americans. Not because he cares about Americans, but he does want to remain dictator....
posted on September 5, 2003 07:58:44 AM new
Helen - Again, there has been no failure. Is this the way you deal with your personal life challenges? Give up when a few problems present themselves? If things aren't IMMEDIATELY solvable, do you admit defeat and run or do you continue to work out new issues as they present themselves?
And we were successful. Saddam has been removed. And we are dealing with each issue as it presents itself.
--------
Will a democrat who's anti-war protect America? Will they hesitate to take action IF NK drops a nuclear bomb, and wish to 'talk it out for years'? That issue is still on the front burner. The leader of NK is a mental case. Should he decide to drop a bomb republicans won't be 'talking' about it.
Those of you who believe the US should rely on directions from, or be under the control of, the UN rather than our own presidents, our own Congress, are sadly mistaken. The US didn't become a world power by looking to the UN for guidance nor approval.
In a recent poll for the moderate Democratic Leadership Council, Republicans held a 28-point lead over Democrats on the handling of terrorism and Iraq (among "married with kids" it's a whopping 45 to 48 points).
Now you guys complain about the cost....spouting nonsense that it will help people make a "MORAL" decision in regards to continuing this liberation process. Most of the world is glad Saddam is no longer in control....they just don't want to help pay for it. AND people have the ability to see the larger picture. The dynamics in the middle east will be greatly improved.
What happened to all the "U.S. is invading because it wants control of all the oil money thoughts"? Why do you now believe the oil money can't be used to pay for the Iraq reconstruction? Like in any business you have to have 'front' money to operate on....to get things going....then the profits come in and your business continues to survive on those funds.
posted on September 5, 2003 08:22:43 AM new
Linda_K and twelvepole Bush Junior dropped the Ball just like his Daddy. What happened to Osma Where is he hiding?? Like you just said "do you continue to work out new issues as they present themselves?" As I remember Osma was first and foremost. What Happened I'll tell you what happened Bush failed. and ran . Just like Daddy and Just like Daddy he will not be reelected unless he makes son serious changes in his way of doing things. But I doubt that he will his ego will not allow it. Remember His famous words "BRING EM ON" or or was it "HELP ME UN"
posted on September 5, 2003 09:29:11 AM new
"Helen - Again, there has been no failure. Is this the way you deal with your personal life challenges? Give up when a few problems present themselves? If things aren't IMMEDIATELY solvable, do you admit defeat and run or do you continue to work out new issues as they present themselves?"
Linda, I don't follow a loser. George Bush had a chance and every decision that he has made is leading to a colossal disaster. You are alone in your belief that Iraq is a success. How on earth can you believe that when there is no end in sight! As I pointed out to you recently, we are dealing with more than a "few problems". We are dealing with Major problems that are escalating toward a colossal disaster. The war is out of control. The economy is out of control. The environment is being trashed. The constitution is being seen as an obstacle. Domestic issues are simply being ignored. Good Lord, Linda - WAKE UP.
I have to go out...To bring you up to date or knock some sense into your head would take forever. Maybe you should start here..
posted on September 5, 2003 09:36:56 AM new
GoldMagnet - We can continue the blame game if you wish. For me, I'd rather be 'forward' looking and work to resolve the current issues. But if you want to blame then blame clinton for he refused to take binLaden when he was handed to him on a silver platter.
As I remember Osma was first and foremost. What Happened I'll tell you what happened Bush failed. and ran .
If you are under the impression that the US is not currently looking for and offering rewards for the capture of binladen, you are seriously mis-informed.
But, imo, there is no reason for the world to come to a stand-still just because we are still searching for him when there are other pressing world issues that need to be dealt with. Some can rub their bellies and pat their heads at the same time.
posted on September 5, 2003 09:43:40 AM newGoldMagnet - We can continue the blame game if you wish. For me, I'd rather be 'forward' looking and work to resolve the current issues.
And out of the OTHER side of her mouth:
But if you want to blame then blame clinton for he refused to take binLaden when he was handed to him on a silver platter.
Doesn't want to play the blame game....unless she wants to blame Clinton for what happens TODAY! Are you going to blame Clinton for that kick in the face you are going to get when the Bush Cabal is finished with you licking their boots?
posted on September 5, 2003 09:48:40 AM new
Helen - How on earth can you believe that when there is no end in sight!
Because I remember that when the US began it's work at rebuilding Europe, after WWII, it was the same way. Took lots of time, lots of money and many more soldiers continued to lose their lives. But look what happened. Success!!
It's my belief that the same thing is going to happen in the Middle East. We just need to be willing to do what it takes to make that happen. But, of course, we have you anti-war people harping all the time now. In the early 40s we had countries that wanted our way of life to stop. Now we have individual groups of terrorists to deal with.
If you think when American's vote they won't be deciding which candidate will be best at fighting terrorism, you'd be wrong. Look at the DNL poll I posted. Look back on history with McGovern.
posted on September 5, 2003 10:58:41 AM new
I can just see it now, the U.N. troops come under fire. They radio back to H.Q. for permission to return fire & are told to stand by, we are seeking a NEW UN resolution to allow you to open fire.
Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34
posted on September 5, 2003 11:27:35 AM new
mlecher - If you'd like to go back in history we could start with the blame game during the JF Kennedy years. He, at that time, believed a regime change in Iraq was necessary....although Iraq was under a different leader at that time.....and so have most administrations since then.
When I say we can continue with the blame game I mean that it really doesn't get us to the point of where we need to be. It wastes time.
What the democrats are doing is setting themselves up as an anti-war party. I don't believe that's in their best interests IF they want to win the presidency. They offer a LOT of criticism, but offer little in the way of constructive ideas.
Would you like some freedom fries with your crow, Mr. President?
Six months after spitting in the face of the world, the Bush administration is crawling on its belly
before the U.N. If the world doesn't rush to help it, the White House has only itself to blame.
Sept. 4, 2003 | Let me make sure I've got this right. After being insulted, belittled and called
irrelevant by the swaggering machos in the Bush administration, the United Nations is now
supposed to step forward to supply cannon fodder for America's disastrous Iraq occupation --
while the U.S. continues to run the show?
In other words, the rest of the world is to send its troops to get killed so that a U.S. president it fears
and despises can take the credit for an invasion it bitterly opposed.
Contd...
posted on September 5, 2003 02:24:31 PM new
Going to the UN is a big mistake. France and Germany (and US liberals) would prefer to see Iraq go down in flames than for us to succeed with a democracy in Iraq.
posted on September 5, 2003 02:25:43 PM new
There you go again helen....taking delight in what you believe is your own country getting it's face rubbed in the dirt. Shame on you. Even democrats who hate bush don't support getting their country's face rubbed in the mud by the likes of France, Germany and Syria. But here you are taking THEIR side in the issue.
Russia is leaning towards our side, in sending troops.
But have fun, helen, continuing to take delight in France, Germany and Syria not wanting to allow troops/money being provided until the UN has total control. 'Cause it's not going to happen.
By-the-way. Today I read an article about how some in Germany are 'wishfully longing' for how things used to be under communism. You on their side?
posted on September 5, 2003 02:37:59 PM new
From AP breaking news - today:
The United States believes the Iraqis must remain in charge of this process - but France and Germany want more Security Council control.
Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov gave cautious approval to the resolution Friday, but reaffirmed Russia's push for a quick restoration of Iraq's sovereignty, adding that the draft will need more work to win approval at the U.N. Security Council.
"Preliminarily speaking, I can say that this initiative deserves attention since the content of the proposed resolution reflects those principles which Russia has consistently championed," Ivanov said, according to the Interfax and ITAR-Tass news agencies.
"The American draft outlines movement toward those principles, and, naturally very serious work needs to be done so that they are fully reflected" in the final version.
Still, in a strong signal Moscow was edging closer to Washington than to France and Germany - which it joined in opposing the war - Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said Thursday Russia may send peacekeepers to Iraq as part of an international force.
China was also against the war. But in Beijing, Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said Thursday that the U.S. offer to share Iraq's postwar reconstruction was in line with the objectives of China, which has "actively participated in the endeavor."
