firstsgtmike
05-30-03, 06:49 AM
I may be mistaken, but I thought I read several articles where the UN was asking for/demanding a larger say-so in post war Iraq.
Some people/organizations cannot accept "Yes" for an answer.
They go into a state of shock, because they are geared to protest, but NOT to deliver.
Posted 5/29/2003 10:01 PM
Relief for U.S. troops lacking
By Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon's search for troops from other nations to replace U.S. soldiers in the force that is stabilizing postwar Iraq has fallen short of expectations, and U.S. officials face the prospect of keeping more U.S. forces in Iraq than they had hoped, diplomats and military officials say.
Despite efforts to prod other nations to send troops — and a United Nations resolution on May 22 that cleared the way for countries to begin contributing soldiers to the postwar effort — the United States and Britain have gotten promises of just 13,000 troops from two dozen countries, according to diplomats for the affected countries. The first significant arrivals could come in July.
That's much fewer than the tens of thousands of troops U.S. planners want. There are about 150,000 U.S. troops and 15,000 British troops in Iraq, along with a smattering of soldiers from other nations. Pentagon officials had hoped to begin substituting troops from other countries for some U.S. troops as early as next month, when they had expected to send home most of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, which will now stay on.
Getting help from foreign troops is important for reasons beyond sending home battle-weary U.S. forces. The Bush administration would like to put a more multinational face on the occupation of Iraq by visibly involving a broader group of nations. Foreign help also could cut U.S. costs at a time when U.S. planners are facing an open-ended military mission in Afghanistan plus other operations in the war against terrorism.
In a speech Tuesday to the Council on Foreign Relations, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said 39 nations have contributed to the stabilization force or "provided other assistance." But the Pentagon will not specify which nations are contributing troops, or how many have been promised.
In his speech, Rumsfeld also said many U.S. troops will be required "for as long as it takes" to create a secure atmosphere in Iraq.
The United Sates is getting enthusiastic help from Poland. Polish officials said they are determined to take a lead role in the military security of Iraq as well as demonstrate to the United States and other NATO nations that it can be a good ally.
In Warsaw, 15 nations took part last week in talks on the force for Iraq. Polish officials said they received commitments from enough nations to fill out a 7,000-strong force for a sector of Iraq they will command.
Several countries the United States was hoping would send large numbers of troops now say they can contribute small groups for a short period of time. For example, Denmark says it was asked for 5,000 troops but will send 380.
Other nations that have participated in peacekeeping missions elsewhere have declined to send troops because public opinion in their countries heavily opposed the U.S. invasion and continues to oppose postwar U.S.-British control. There are other snags:
NATO is preparing a force of 5,500 troops for peacekeeping duties in Afghanistan. That is drawing European troops who might have helped in Iraq.
Worse-than-expected postwar lawlessness and violence in Iraq have forced U.S. planners to keep more troops there, and have increased the anxiety of some nations about committing their forces.
Some nations have few soldiers to send or a lack of money to pay for any significant deployment.
Britain's 15,000 troops still in Iraq are down from 45,000 during the war, and Britain has said it will continue to reduce the size of its force.
British Defense Minister Geoffrey Hoon said in an interview that a long occupation would severely strain Britain's small military. "It is fair to say we are stretched," Hoon said.
Some people/organizations cannot accept "Yes" for an answer.
They go into a state of shock, because they are geared to protest, but NOT to deliver.
Posted 5/29/2003 10:01 PM
Relief for U.S. troops lacking
By Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon's search for troops from other nations to replace U.S. soldiers in the force that is stabilizing postwar Iraq has fallen short of expectations, and U.S. officials face the prospect of keeping more U.S. forces in Iraq than they had hoped, diplomats and military officials say.
Despite efforts to prod other nations to send troops — and a United Nations resolution on May 22 that cleared the way for countries to begin contributing soldiers to the postwar effort — the United States and Britain have gotten promises of just 13,000 troops from two dozen countries, according to diplomats for the affected countries. The first significant arrivals could come in July.
That's much fewer than the tens of thousands of troops U.S. planners want. There are about 150,000 U.S. troops and 15,000 British troops in Iraq, along with a smattering of soldiers from other nations. Pentagon officials had hoped to begin substituting troops from other countries for some U.S. troops as early as next month, when they had expected to send home most of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, which will now stay on.
Getting help from foreign troops is important for reasons beyond sending home battle-weary U.S. forces. The Bush administration would like to put a more multinational face on the occupation of Iraq by visibly involving a broader group of nations. Foreign help also could cut U.S. costs at a time when U.S. planners are facing an open-ended military mission in Afghanistan plus other operations in the war against terrorism.
In a speech Tuesday to the Council on Foreign Relations, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said 39 nations have contributed to the stabilization force or "provided other assistance." But the Pentagon will not specify which nations are contributing troops, or how many have been promised.
In his speech, Rumsfeld also said many U.S. troops will be required "for as long as it takes" to create a secure atmosphere in Iraq.
The United Sates is getting enthusiastic help from Poland. Polish officials said they are determined to take a lead role in the military security of Iraq as well as demonstrate to the United States and other NATO nations that it can be a good ally.
In Warsaw, 15 nations took part last week in talks on the force for Iraq. Polish officials said they received commitments from enough nations to fill out a 7,000-strong force for a sector of Iraq they will command.
Several countries the United States was hoping would send large numbers of troops now say they can contribute small groups for a short period of time. For example, Denmark says it was asked for 5,000 troops but will send 380.
Other nations that have participated in peacekeeping missions elsewhere have declined to send troops because public opinion in their countries heavily opposed the U.S. invasion and continues to oppose postwar U.S.-British control. There are other snags:
NATO is preparing a force of 5,500 troops for peacekeeping duties in Afghanistan. That is drawing European troops who might have helped in Iraq.
Worse-than-expected postwar lawlessness and violence in Iraq have forced U.S. planners to keep more troops there, and have increased the anxiety of some nations about committing their forces.
Some nations have few soldiers to send or a lack of money to pay for any significant deployment.
Britain's 15,000 troops still in Iraq are down from 45,000 during the war, and Britain has said it will continue to reduce the size of its force.
British Defense Minister Geoffrey Hoon said in an interview that a long occupation would severely strain Britain's small military. "It is fair to say we are stretched," Hoon said.